A newbies impression of the 109 and spit
 

Honestly, I'm not really impressed with the me, only because the spit seems to be a clown wagon. I don't know if im over turning the me-109, but to me it seems even the spit Ia can toy with 2 aircraft (did it against a Bf-110 and Me-109) and still came out on top. It just turns so darn well without stalling, which just seems suspect to me. I know it had "the better turn rate", but the spit seems really easy to make fly it's best rather than the me 109.
I just don't get it...to me it just seems like an aircraft with the proper difficulty of a fighter is pitted against a Cessna 172 that can make good speed and has .308 guns. I really don't know if this is realistic or not...but it just seems dubious to me. I think both planes would be more evenly matched if the spit wasn't so brain dead easy to fly, and it actually took effort to pull high AoA turns in the spit like it seems to in the 109. It just seems like night and day. The Me-109 you have to think about turn rates, and not bleeding energy to stay in the air...and the spit is more like "whats energy again I've got pretty wings and a Merlin remember!"

Do you mean Spitfire Mk.II or Mk.I?

He wrote about the spit 1a.

It just said 'Spit' at the time I was reading it, sorry.

Anyway, the 2 German pilots were not very good then.

They must've been idiots.

Try it post patch and have more than one flight.

I'm speaking about the Spit Ia or really all the spits. I think it's too easy to fly in general. Not really too fast, but just too easy in general to skillfully maneuver. I suppose I wasn't clear as to what i was talking of

lets put it this way:

In ROF the Camel has also been characterized as having a very light and touchy elevator, this makes the camel the most agile plane in the game...but also tricky to fly...yet rewarding. Currently with my limited experience with the spit it seems to not have touchy elevators, but just effective everything controls.

I dunno, I was reading reports from German pilots saying: (paraphrasing) "was on par with the ME-109 or inferior, unless flown by an exceptional pilot". Now, I just jumped in the thing and played around in the mud, with garbage tactics when i knew i should be dead...and won...flying circles around these guys...and I'm no master pilot as far as i know.

I would say that this is very much the case in the sim. It certainly is inferior to the 109.

I suggest you try her a bit more against competent pilots, that might give you better picture.

I think you are already self-consious enough Gimpy with the title of your post "A newbies...."

Just out of curiocity, you are flying with Complex Engine Management ON and all additional difficulty options engaged and, you are testing the Spit 1a against online pilots (not AI), right?

A well flown Bf109 rules over a Spit 1a, unless the Bf109 run out of ammo...

~S~

Indeed this is the most annoying thing about the whole Spit model, which was very much like the famous Camel in this regard. The elevator touchiness is not modeled (nor was in old Il-2). Every manual, report, pilot commenting on the issue noted that the Spitfire elevator was exceedingly light, and sensitive and required very delicate control. Stick force / g was in the order of 4 lbs / G, so you could easily pull 12-13 Gs with one hand, which would certainly black you out in short order, stall or even break the aircraft.

In Il-2 COD, pulling the sick full back not even stalled the Spit II for example...

The handling is fishy for all aircraft I would say, its very hard to stall them and outright impossible to break them (and I tried really hard flying in the most dangerous fashion possible: full nose up trim AND full stick-on-stomach at the end of the dive at around 350-400 mph IAS, which would be certain to break any fighter in the game two, but you simply can't...). I guess its just more profilic in the case of the Spit, which had ultra sensitive pitch control compared to all others.

Hi gimpy117!

Hope you can join us sometime on the ATAG server -- be sure to have Teamspeak installed!

Snapper

I agree with that. It's just a little to easy to fly. I'm sure a well flown Me-109 can win a battle...but the fact is...IMO the skill and practice required to fly the Me-109 is not even remotely mirrored by the Spitfire. Making the spit rightfully touchy would solve this. It was always difficult in RoF because the camel was so touchy and took discretionary control inputs to fly at it's best, just yanking the stick back all the way to turn resulted in a stall.

Also, I do fly on the Atag server. and against other planes


yes, but just the fact I could put myself in a terrible position, the 1st time in the a/c and still come out on top, while flying the plane to a much higher level at 2:1 odds kinda says something...or at least in my opinion.

What he said.

Well...
 

You currently stand at 29 "entries" on ATAG server, with 11 kills + 12 deaths.

I fly the Spit 1a a lot...a whole lot, I fly only on ATAG. Come fly the Spit 1a a bit more on ATAG as I am sure that your impression will change when you go against Mr. X, notafinger, Little D, vit unit, Recoilfx, etc. I could go on with names but it would be pointless.

As you said, you're new and inexperienced, go up vs. an Experten and they will OWN you in the Spit 1a. The only card you hold in the Spit 1a is turning...that's it. It's slow, can't climb to save itself, can't dive, can't do anything but turn.

It really sucks when you've got your throttle & pitch wide open and watch the 109's just climb away and not a damn thing you can do about it. Put your tail between your legs, dive, and start to turn because you're going to die as soon as they hammerhead your ass...

Given that, I have 3 words...YOU GOT LUCKY.

Be quite careful what you post and what kind of flame war you look to start. :evil:

lol yea he was flaming on the atag server last night about how the 109 can't turn with it haha

lol i was more actively complaining ;) lol I tend to do that when I have reservations about FM's, but if it came across as flaming...I sincerely Apologize. Wasn't attacking the people, just the way the planes fly. I don't have beef with anybody as far as I know...

Nobody is interested to read that kind of stuff in the chatline. We all know what the issues with the FMs are. ;)

yeah i know lol I was on a little bit of a rant. Remember 8 hours between the bottle and throttle ;)

I have seen a former spitfire pilot interview on youtube in which he says

" anyone could fly a spitfire, but you had to be an expert to fly a 109"

This is roughly how it is in COD.

Sound like you were just lucky and flew against some pilots who didn't know how to use the advantages of the 109.

Indeed the Spitfire had few vices, this is well documented from BoB pilots. Kurfurst refers to the elevator as if there is a problem, but he is referring to the report that Jeff Quill gave after one of the early test flights, so Supermarine made some adjustments and then it was fine.

Don't reply Kurfurst, I am not interested in your biased, one-sided view on the Spitfire vs 109.

I think it was sensitive and like many aircraft of this era had poorly harmonised controls, but it can't realistically be described as "ultra sensitive", otherwise the literature would be full of accounts of Spits getting bent in PIOs on landing. It's also possible to over-estimate the impact of poorly-harmonised controls. In my limited experience of flying, you quickly adjust to the control forces needed for different aircraft and it ceases to be a problem, unless they are so high as to be tiring.

I agree that spit pilots learnt with exercise to handle the difference between elevator and roll sensitivity which was noticed by several pilots. I do not know if it caused much trouble for pilots as I do not have much flying experience with badly harmonized controls though. I imagine that it does require a bit of learning.

The stall behaviour seems a bit odd in any plane right now imho. And the 109 does turn like a brick while I think it was more agile even though not as agile as the spit turn radius and to a certain extend turn rate wise.

Hi Gimpy117,
I saw this question to you earlier but don't recall seeing a reply.

"Are you flying with Complex Engine Management turned on?"

S!

as far as i know yes

I gather then that you haven't gone into the settings area to set your preferences up?

Boxes need to be checked etc.

Suggest you pop in there and see if you have your settings set to advanced.

Makes a very big difference.

Cheers,

Wow...

There is no problem unless you are a stability and control engineer, have some knowledge about airplanes, or dead because of the longitudinal instability.

Wow

There is no problem, unless you play different sim than everybody else.

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

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

gimpy you seem to be lucky meeting inexperienced 109 pilots. Or was that an AI?

In my book it's not the plane that holds energy, it's the pilot. If you did your evasive turn to the left clean enough and he tried to follow you and turn with you instead of climbing (and not missing the burst in the first place) and yo yo into your turn (no matter how tight, 109 rolls fast enough) outmanoevering you effectively. If the 109 was me, I'd probably turn with you for a while, especially so after scoring some hits and if you'd be gaining angles on me I would still be able to extend safely, horizontally or vertically. And I am not quite as good as 109 specialists.

Same goes for the Spitfire - if your turn is sloppy, you'd lose lots of E, drop wing or stall alltogether.

The above is based on my experience online as RAF or LW pilot, yrmv of course.

I love this constant reference to longitudinal instability, from a plane that everyone who flew it be they allied or German found very easy to fly and land.

Don't you think its being over egged

... and longitudally unstable:

The German view:

The rolling ability of the enemy fighters at high speeds is worse than that of the Bf 109. Quick changes of the trajectory along the vertical axis cause especially with the Spitfire load changes around the cranial axis, coming from high longitudinal thrust momemtum, and significantly disturb the aiming.

In summary, it can be said that all three enemy planes types are inferior to the German planes regarding the flying qualities. Especially the Spitfire has bad rudder and elevator stability on the target approach. In addition the wing-mounted weapons have the known shooting-technique disadvantages.

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

The British view:

Gimpy117,
Not having your realism settings set accordingly can initiate unrealistic performance as you describe.

Here is a pic of the realism settings FYI - check your Engine settings and Atomosphere and Handling.

S!

The real 109E could do sustained turns in 18.92 secs at 1.3ata at SL, we have the 1.35ata version so probably it can be marginally better than that.. anyway, I did a quick test and got about that much, so I don't there's something wrong there.

I don't know how fast Hurris and Spits turn though. They should be better, but by how much? If they would do a sustained turn in 11-12 secs I'd say something is definietely stinking (that's a biplane only zone), but 15-16 secs would sound about right.

Sorry Kurfurst but you are wrong about the spit elevators, they were sensitive yes but can in no way way be classed as ultra sensitive. I am a real world aerobatic pilot generally flying a Pitts special, and have flown many aerobatic types. The elevator on these aircraft IS sensitive, much much more so than the Spit. The Spitfire that went into service was and always has, been described as having well balanced controls (a twitch elevator would not accord this distinction!).

It is a well known fact that the British aircraft types were much more forgiving than the German equivalents, a factor in itself in the supremacy of the Spitfire over the ME109 during the Battle of Britain. You had 'green' pilots on both sides, but the Spitfire was markedly easier to fly for those pilots allowing inexperienced pilots to get more out of the machine than was typical of the Germans.

Longitudinal Instability and the Pitts elevator are not comparible. There is a huge difference between the minimal stability exhibited by a Pitts and a dangerous instability exhibited by the Spitfire.

The Bf-109 is much more forgiving than any straight wing high aspect ratio design without LE slats. Think of the slats just like training wheels. An elliptical wing on the other hand exhibits very harsh stall characteristics because of its shape.

OMG...you really do believe this crap!

Yet the spitfire is well documented as having benign characteristics.......

Yeah Right, the Spitfire was so dangerous that pilots dreaded flying the machine and it was roundly condemned by the A&AEE, the RAE and by Supermarine test pilots, and has since been banned by the FAA and other aviation authorities worldwide. :grin::grin::grin:

No doubt Kurfurst will bring up the Spitfire V crashes described in Shacklady and Morgan...pp 160-161 (I think)

Or he'll post the attached paper and claim that this proves how dangerous and unstable the Spitfire was because so many of them broke up in flight.

So, to save all our time from his predictable arguments here's what Supermarine Chief Test pilot Jeffrey Quill had to say about the "dangerously unstable" Spitfire (Spitfire:A Test Pilot's Story. John Murray, 1983):

"In a high-performance fighter, lack of stability can be exceedingly dangerous in the course of manoeuvring at high speeds...Therefore, in aeroplanes such as the Spitfire, which were entirely manually controlled, any inherent instability was unacceptable and potentially dangerous....

There were other factors which affected the aerodynamics of the stability of the Spitfire. For example the aerodynamic characteristics of the elevator itself (as opposed to the fixed tailplane) also had a major influence on stability and at Supermarine we exploited this and increased the stability margins as we moved from one mark of Spitfire to another. (229-230)

In general configuration the Mk I and Mk II production aeroplanes were almost identical to the prototype and so there was no problem with their stability. (231-232)

The Mk III Spitfire did not go into production, but the success of the bobweight experiment in curing its instability...opened up the possibility of its use for later marks of Spitfire....which was just as well as we had to...respond to a nasty situation which developed in 1942.

The Mk V aircraft was...in full service with Fighter Command and,...a fair amount of additional operational equipment had gradually crept into the aircraft, most of it stowed within the fuselage. The aftmost acceptable position for the aircraft's centre of gravity had been fixed in the normal course of flight testing by the firm and by the A & AEE....Any rearward movement of the centre of gravity in service, for whatever reason, would begin to destabilise the aircraft. Therefore, for each sub-variant of the Mk V detailed instructions for the correct loading of the aircraft were issued to squadrons....However the importance of these loading instructions was not generally appreciated in squadrons and in the daily round of operational activity they tended to be disregarded." (pages 232-233 -Quill goes on to describe 65 Sqn's Spitfire Vbs which were found to be dangerously unstable)

There was thus a real chance that, as of that moment, in almost every squadron in the Command Spitfires were flying in a dangerous state of instability....Up to that time there had been a distressing and increasing incidence of total structural failure of Spitfires in the air, which was causing great concern in the MAP and especially at Supermarine. (pages234-235)

....our aerodynamicists at Hursley Park thought that an even more effective answer could be obtained by enlarging the horn balance of the standard elevator and this we did in stages. The effect was astonishing.

At last a way had been found to improve the basic stability of the aeroplane, thus giving more flexibility in centre of gravity movement, without our having resource to any enlargement of the fixed tail surfaces....The enlarged horn balance of the elevator produced a slightly unpleasant 'feel' of the aeroplane at low speeds...This effect was trivial by comparison with the gains in stability margins." (p 237)

Once the bobweights had been introduced and, in later marks, the modified mass balances on the elevators...it was statistically established that, as soon as the longitudinal stability of the Spitfire was thus brought under control, the problem of the unexplained breakings-up of aircraft in mid-air,...'softly and suddenly vanished away'. (page 238 )


Note the comments that stability margins increased over the course of Spitfire production; with the introduction of the Griffon engined Spitfires, and especially the five bladed propellers of the 65 series the size of the tail surfaces were increased to help cope with the bigger blade area and extended nose - there were some marginal instability problems, but not enough to make the aircraft dangerous. There were problems with the early Spitfire F. Mk 21's control characteristics, but these were ironed out with further developments in the elevator balance weights and configuration. The Mk Vs breaking up in flight were badly loaded with extra equipment in squadron service, with their cg pushed too far back, thus they were dangerously unstable, but this was not an inherent problem with the airframe.

No doubt Crumpp will try to claim that with his vast aviation experience he knows better than Jeffrey Quill and there'll be other smokescreens by another Spitfirephobe who has posted here but the fact is that All claims about the Spitfire being inherently dangerously unstable are quite false and not worth bothering with.

And here's what Alex Henshaw, Chief Test Pilot at Castle Bromwich, says about the flight characteristics: Spitfire demo flights:

"...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 manoeuvre might be repeated or continued with a vertical dive with aileron turns...Considering how often this was demonstrated with all marks of Spitfires I am surprised that it should ever be suspected that wings might suffer structural failure in such a situation when excessive aileron loads were used in high-speed dives.

From the Mk I Spitfire up until the Mk 21 the Vne was set by the Supermarine technical department at 470 mph IAS at a height assumed to be between 5,000 and 10,000 feet....At no time did the Supermarine test pilots reduce the Vne from 470 mph to 450 mph....If ever any doubts existed within our own test pilots as to the structural risks of diving the Spitfire they were dispelled when reports were received from combat units to the effect that some of their pilots complained of excessive engine revs when diving under extreme conditions....The basic pitch setting of the de Havilland propeller was set to give 3,000 rpm at 9lb boost on take-off, and would remain in the constant speed range up to full power and not exceed 3,000 rpm up to its Vne of 470 mph...it was decided to investigate the problem to its limits.
A standard Mk V without calibrated instruments or modifications was taken up to 37,000 ft. A maximum speed run at full power with engine revs at 3,000 was carried out for 2 minutes before peeling off with a half-roll to dive down to near ground level. Up to the Vne of 470 mph the propeller constant speeded with engine revs at 3,000, and then as the speed increased the propeller came up against its basic pitch setting stop and engine revs climbed rapidly. The ASI indicated what might be assumed to be some degree of accuracy within the normal range, but as the speed progressed beyond the these limits the needle climbed so far into the region beyond the 450 mark that it was obvious that no further notice should be taken of it. We were not certain that the machine had in fact reached its terminal velocity point...it was decide to carry out another dive with greater concentration on the rev counter....This final dive proved two factors. With the single-stage blower Merlin, the Spitfire could not be dived faster, and at 3,700-3,800 rpm in those conditions the basic pitch setting should be readjusted." (Aeroplane Monthly September 1995, 55-56)

Yep the Spitfire was so dangerously unstable that Henshaw flew it like a maniac and crashed and died several times.

Henshaw: "Compared with the Compar Swift, de Havilland T.K.4 or the Mew Gull the elevator controls on the Spitfire were quite heavy. To the young pilot trained on Tiger Moths or Magisters, however, the Spitfire elevators would indeed feel light, so that time and experience would be needed to get used to the feel." (AM September 1995 p. 55)

Quill on the prototype:
"The A&AEE pilots remarked also that the elevator was too light and too powerful and they recommended reducing the gear ratio between the elevator and the control column. I suspected at the time, and later with more experience and understanding of the problem I became quite convinced that they were wrong in blaming the elevator for being too light. This was much too simplistic a conclusion. The aeroplane was on the borderline of instability and making a heavier elevator, or even a smaller one, would have been no solution." cf his comments about further development increasing the stability margins. (Spitfire:ATPS p. 231)

As this phrase, as it stands here, is to my knowledge right, it does not apply to the spitfire. The spit had cranked wings with a reduced angle of attack at the outer parts of the wing (where the ailerons were). This meant that if, for a given speed, the angle of attack became too high on the inner section of the wing to generate lift it was still small enough on the outer sections. Hence while the wing stalled first on the inner section it stalled later on the outside section.

This was a security measure installed by supermarine because they were aware of the problem of the elliptical wing that you just mentioned.

When you read raf pilot accounts they repeatedly mention that they got buffeting shudder on the brick of a stall warning them about an imminent stall. This situation occured when the inner section stalled but not the outer section where the ailerons were, allowing the spit to be still controllable around the roll axis.

Of course cranking the wing also meant to deteriorate the aerodynamical properties of the elliptical wing so that it was less optimal aerodynamic wise. The induced drag was hence bigger than with an uncranked wing. As the advantage of the elliptical wing was later found to be minimal with respect to a trapezoid wing it was abandonned in aviation as the disadvantages in terms of production outweighted its minimal benefits. That's why I definitely think that the elliptical form in itself had nothing to do with the great performance. What supermarine however probably managed to pull off was to design a wing with a large surface which however created more drag but allowed for high lift which was still light weight and in particular very thin.

[QUOTE=BlackbusheFlyer;419116]Sorry Kurfurst but you are wrong about the spit elevators, they were sensitive yes but can in no way way be classed as ultra sensitive. I am a real world aerobatic pilot generally flying a Pitts special, and have flown many aerobatic types. The elevator on these aircraft IS sensitive, much much more so than the Spit. The Spitfire that went into service was and always has, been described as having well balanced controls (a twitch elevator would not accord this distinction!).

I would have respectfully disagree with you assessment, particularly about control harmony. It was a weak part of Spitfire control, as the elevator indeed touchy, while. One Spitfire pilot described the phenomenon as 'touching the elevator with a light fingertip, while arm-wrestling the ailerons'. I would suggest you to study the Spitfire II pilot notes on control aspects, basically they all about instability in pitch and poor control harmony, here: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...17&postcount=4

It particularly challenging thing to do when flying near the stall, NACA for example found that the stall boundary on the controls was very small, just 3/4 inch of stick movement having been found between the first sign of stall and actual stall. This was offset party of course by ample stall warnings and otherwise good stall characteristics, but it took an experienced pilot to fly the aircraft to its limits.

Again, an urban myth. British reports from the time readily admit the opposite. See:
http://kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials/...ls/Morgan.html

The oversensitiveness of the Spitfire I elevator and its tendency to flick over fall entering a spin was also noted by earlier British trials (April 1940) involving a Curtiss Hawk and by German trials in the summer of 1940, and by NACA in 1941 on Spit VA (metal ailerons):

I don't understand your point, Kur.

Yes, the Spit may have had a sensitive elevator. Yes, in case it went into a spin it may have done so in a violent manner.

But again, there is abundant indications by pilots that flew the spit that the airframe provided pilots with sufficient warning before this dangerous behaviour occured. This is, as I explained above, due to the fact that the spit had cranked wings with the inner sections of the wing stalling before the outer sections. The resulting buffeting provided a warning to the pilot.

Stalling on the inner section is in no way dangerous as long as it is approximately symmetrical. I've seen with my own eyes during an experimental flight on a piper that also had cranked wings that basically this plane needs only 1/3 of its wing unstalled to provide sufficient lift. It will have been similar for the spit.

Now what you do is to confuse inexperienced pilots with seasoned ones. Inexperienced pilots of course will have the natural reflex to avoid any situation that puts them at discomfort as they still lack the confidence that comes with routine. They were absorbed by too many things to do at the same time that they had simply no mental resources to make the intelectual reflexion about buffeting as a safety warning even though they might have been told so in theory. They heard that being taught to them but only retained that buffeting means that stall is imminent and therefore has to be avoided. BTW on the German side inexperienced pilots also usually avoided to fly in that way that opened the slats. My guess is for the same reason as their British counterparts. Just try to put yourself in their shoes or remember you after having won your driving license. My guess is that anybody who loves his life will be prudent when trying to familiarize with a new way of motion (driving, flying) or a new type. The procedure most will adopt is to slowly increase the envelop of one's action with growing confidence. Well, that's how I feel when I have a new car with which I am not familiar with. It takes me a while to become more bold with it. I am surely not starting to race like Schumacher on the German Autobahn with a newly bought car.

Stormcrow's comments are borne out by
NACA report Spitfire Va stalling Characteristics

I also note the following conditions in the Wright Field report quoted by Kurfurst:
NACA report Measurements of the Flying Characteristics of the Spitfire Va

According to the cg diagram of an earlier Spitfire I (attached) the cg was a maximum of 7.6" aft of the datum point, which is 19.5" aft of the wing leading edge, a total of 27.1" aft of the wing leading edge, or 4.3" forward of NACA's calculated cg.

while here the cg for a Spitfire Va tested at a loaded weight of 6,450 lbs by the A&AEE was 6.2" aft of the datum point, or 25.7" aft of the wing trailing edge, almost 6" forward of NACA's calculations, making their Va tail heavy, albeit their Spitfire weighed 6,184 lbs, which should not be enough of a difference to affect the cg that much.

How is it possible for a report to determine elevator characteristics when the cg of the test aircraft may not be set up properly? Nor do we know how the Spitfire in the RAE tests was set up.

My point is basically the difference how the Spitfire and 109 behaved when getting near the stall. Both gave plenty of warnings, but the difference was as I see it is that once riding the stall, the Spitfire gave very little margin before you actually stalled, and once stalled it went medieval on you. The 109 otoh could be still pulled with confidence, with plenty of margin for pilot error, as the pitch control was not so sensitive at all, and stall itself was benign and recovery by easing back on the stick instant once it occured. In short I believe the stall and flying the aircraft to its limits was much easier on the 109 - which I as not such a good pilot admire the most when I fly it, and which is why I never liked to fly the 190, Spit or Yak 3. All the latter require much more finesse to fly.

That is said, the 109 due to its higher stalling speed had lower absolute limits when it came to manouvering, so it could not pull such a tight/fast turn, but this is not so important to me as I can reliably push the 109 to its limits all the time.

The 'handling' issue is complex.




Absolutely true, but IMHO there is some misunderstanding about the stalling of the wing roots. All fighters and aircraft are designed as such, its hardly unique to the Spitfire at all. They make planes to stall in the root first because the pilot needs to retain aileron control. On the Spit, Fw 190 etc., pretty much every plane w/o slats its achieved by using washing, or cranking the wings so that the outer section has lower AoA than the inner and would thus reach stalling incidence later. On slatted aircraft like the 109, Lavochkins etc. the same is achieved by leading edge slats - its no coincidence that these cover the wing area ahead of the ailerons!

Absolutely agree, when I was doing my licence I had three cars to learn on (one of them being an absolutely horrid old Ford Escort, which I absolutely hated) and I always needed about 5 hours in the new ones to get familiar and instinctly 'feel' their behaviour. OTOH I am very familiar with my own car, which has superb and delightful response (which is why I am so reluctant to give it up) and can really get the maximum out of it now, and with growing experience, I need a lot less time to adjust to a new car.

Back to the planes, as a rookie I would be more confident to experiment and push things a bit more in a plane that tolerates my mistakes more. Straightforward handling and not having to bother with a million others things like engine controls helps a confused rookie a lot. The car example is pretty good actually, because while learning to drive the most difficult thing was to absorb all the things and information that were happening around me, giving me very little capacity to actually drive the car. With time and experience, much of that absorbing becomes a second nature, and automatic, instinctual.

ps. as for the Autobahn, its a dreadful experience at first if you are not got used to cars flashing by constantly at 200 + km/h..

NACA report Spitfire Va stalling Characteristics with reference to the concluding remarks on page 9...
From Spitfire Va Flight CharacteristicsThe report goes on to state:
This hardly speaks about a deadly stall and it certainly doesn't mean the Spitfire was inherently dangerously unstable as claimed by Crumpp. It would be interesting to know whether this Spitfire, as tested, might have been marginally unstable, because, as noted, the cg position was not accurately known. It would also be interesting to know how the elevator control was affected by the extended mass balances described by Jeffrey Quill.

Getting back to flight qualities in CloD, how would it be possible to replicate these qualities?

Yes and that is why I specifically did not address the Spitfire. In the Spitfire, the benefit of having an elliptical wing efficiency was all but eliminated in compensating for the stall characteristics of an elliptical wing.

It would help if you understood everything that report says instead of select phrases out of context. If you can't do that , it is practically impossible to hold a discussion.


If you read the report, it states the conditions the aircraft exhibited a very harsh stall. One of those conditions would be in a steep bank with gun ports open. Under those conditions, the aircraft would develop a roll instability and resulting spin.

The conditions matter in aerodynamics.

Yes the Spitfire gave very good stall warning. That large buffet zone comes at a price in diminishing turn performance.

Longitudinal Stability has nothing to do with stall characteristics except to determine how fast the pilot can move the wing through its useable angle of attack range.

The NACA rated the Spitfire as having unacceptable longitudinal stability and control in all conditions of flight. It is either neutral or unstable and this was corrected with bob weights in later marks.

That is not a bias, it is just a fact. None of these aircraft were perfect regarding stability and control. Some were worse than others and it is a fact the early mark Spitfires exhibited a dangerous longitudinal instability. It was an infant science when they were developed.

You know that this matter can't be resolved right, do you?

not violent: there is no meter for the stall to be "violent/not violent".
unusual amount: is it possible to quantify the usual one? And usual compared to?
many flight conditions: which ones?
party stlled: again... no numbers.

If we want the real numbers we have to rent a spitfire, install on it all the modern testing stuff and run it.

I've never loved much the 109 while I've always hated the Oleg's Spitfire (but I love the real one since I was a kid): anyway I've never trusted the myth of the elliptical wings because of these planes fly against the physic laws compared to all the other ww2 planes.

Nonsense Crumpp - you are the one who is taking things out of context - note what the report said about the cg calculations cf the A&AEE report on the same aircraft type - the possibility was that the Spitfire flown by NACA was slightly tail heavy.

Not forgetting also what Quill had to say about the early Spitfires - "In general configuration the Mk I and Mk II production aeroplanes were almost identical to the prototype and so there was no problem with their stability. (231-232)" I'll take his word over yours any day.

As for having a "discussion" with you Crumpp - not interested because I know you'll turn it into a loooong, tedious thread, arguing over minute detail, while sticking to your opinion that the Spitfire was "dangerously unstable" no matter what. I don't care what you think because I know you're not interested in any one else's opinion, except when they agree with you.

The numbers and graphs start on page 25 of the NACA report on the Spitfire Va flight characteristics - which can be downloaded and viewed in its entirety, as can the NACA report on the Spitfire Va stall. Testing a real one would be interesting - Duxford anyone?

Operating Notes Spitfire Mk IIa:

http://img571.imageshack.us/img571/5556/spinning1n.jpg

Operating Notes warning on the Longitudinal Instability:

http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/3848/elevatorload.jpg


NACA on the stall:

http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/5...sopenstall.jpg

NACA on the Longitudinal Instability:

http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/5...estability.jpg

While CG certainly does effect stall onset and characteristics, I am certain the NACA was capable of doing a weight and balance. A new weight and balance would have been a requirement once the aircraft was rigged for testing.

They were very aware of the effect of CG position on stall characteristics too.

Both the stall characteristics and the longitudinal instability are included in the General Operating Notes for the Marks that did not recieve bob weights.

Every report ever written on the Spitfire has apparently flawed because they were always have been made on a 'rogue' plane or a single example that proves nothing etc.

How boring.

Except that everyone knows that Quill is khmm... the most outspoken priest of the Spitfire ever. If you ask Quill, the thing had no faults, and they were also immediately and complete fixed. Over and over again. Which is why he is liked to be quoted so much, as if his word was some kind of ultimate judgement which overwrites detailed reports. Quill may have an opinion, but these reports have the hard facts.

Personally I find Henshaw far, far more objective. At least he doesn't try to make it like how everything was made just perfect, despite some very obscene hiccups in the development (fabric ailerons being one of them)

That's pretty much the very best self-description I have ever read. I mean you keep playing the know-it-better smartass everytime, and then make it like as if the 'a loooong, tedious thread' its someone else fault, and then comes the usual yada-yada about your precious time and how you will put everyone on ignore.

Problem is, you've only registered here to carry over some feuds from other places, and you have made almost as many posts in 2 months as Crumpp or I did in 4 years. :D

Nope, arguing over minute details is exactly what you like to do. At least don't blame it on others. ;)

Quill is to the Spitfire as Barbi is to the Bf109.

Actually I find this highlighted phrase (bold) more interesting in the quote of NZTyphoon:

It says clearly that when riding the stall the margin was still big on pulling the stick.

I find the red phrase also interesting. Perhaps somebody with excellent understanding of flight mechanics can explain why large accelerations may be bad when flying at stall limit.

Hmm, Im no expert, far from it but wouldnt/doesnt the AoA change when power is applied (torque) hence changing the flow over the wings?

Yes, to my understanding it would increase the speed (if longitudinal acceleration is considered) hence reduce AoA which hence should reduce stall.

With lateral acceleration increase (into the turn) the velocity vector should turn more but I do not understand how this could worsen the stall situation.

Sort of correct, mainly it's the AoA increase would put you over critical and you would get a departure, torque would just define which way you go into the resulting spin, the propwash wouldn't help much in this case.

My guess is that they do not address thrust increase otherwise they would have written it I think.

Reading more closely the phrase I come to think that they perhaps wanted to say "as long as g level remained low during maximum lift pulls" meaning that the absolut lift was low while providing maximum lift for that given speed.

I admit to wondering what all the fuss is about. The vast majority of my flying experience has been in gliders so what I say comes with that caviet.

Any high speed stall is an exciting event even in a glider. By definition things happen quickly and often violently, so no suprise there.

Where the pilots notes warn about rough conditions causing the pilot to make control movements that can impact flight, its common sense and often happens. It could be that my experience is different here as what a powered plane calls turbulance is what we call potential lift and have more experience flying in those conditions. This warning would apply to any small aircraft, be it a Spitfire, 109, Piper Cub or glider.

Flying on the edge of a stall using the stall warning to stay close to the maximum performance is again a good thing, glider pilots often fly on the edge and in one case when I lost my instruments whle thermalling in a cloud with driving rain, had a good deal to do with my safe exit.
Edit - had my glider had automatic front edge slats like the 109, I may well have had to bail out, never thought of that before.


A violent spin if you push past the boundary is again nothing to worry about, it happens and you are trained not to go past the edge. I have seen international standard pilots make this mistake and spin out of a stack. You soon recognise the warning signs.

A couple of general observations,
a) the best fighters are by design borderline unstable.
b) Nearly all the reports I have seen from German pilots who flew captured Spifires said that they were easier to fly than the 109. This again supported by the Jugoslav airforce who had both Hurricanes and 109E's and used the Hurricane as a lead in to the 109 because of accidents. The RAF didn't use Hurricanes as a lead in to the Spitfire.

I find it a bit of a failure in job description that a test pilot would not report any faults because he thought it was perfect. Get real Kurfurst.

I just find it pure comedy gold that Kurfursts arrogance and general hatred of the Spit is such that he genuinely believes that he knows more about Spits that Quill did.

says everything you need to know.

Sure, in an aircraft with acceptable stability and control characteristics...

If you don't have that then the pilot can kill himself and turn the aircraft to aluminum confetti as the Spitfire Operating Notes tells you.

Keep in mind that pilots in the 1930's and 1940's were not the technical experts found in today's aviation world.

They were practical pilots who got there mostly on their courage. It was felt that it was beyond the pilots comprehension to delve too deeply into the science of flight.

Pilots were given a rudimentary knowledge of aerodynamics at best and strict left/right limits required to operate the aircraft.

ie: Quill was a no nothing pilot who just operated the controls and hoped for the best - yeah right! Interesting how Barbi and Crumpp now attack one of the most highly regarded test plots of his generation because they don't like what he wrote about the Spitfire...way to go guys! :rolleyes:

Well we just noted that Quills opinion is at odd with the very detailed testing findings of RAE, NACA and E'Stelle Rechlin. I am quite sure you are right that all these organisations experience objectiveness in testing aircraft and assessing their flying qualities pales in comparison with that of the manufacturer's own test pilot. ;)

You push any aircraft past its limits and failure may happen. However it is a rare case. What I find intersting is that you don't take note of the comments from the German pilots who flew the Spitfire and said that it was easier to fly than the 109, or the Jugoslav pilots who flew the Hurricane and Me109. Why do you just ignore that?

Does anyone have the pilots notes for the 109, I am confident that if they are to the same scope then they will have their won warnings.

Partly true, however the UK were the first to train test pilots in the 40's Germany and the USA didn't.

Because you haven't shown any...? I believe Moelders stated that the Spitfire and Hurricane are easier to land than the 109. He also added that they are otherwise miserable as fighter aircraft.

Yes I have. It doesn't have any of the longitudal stability references as the Spitfire pilot's notes, however. There are a few similarities - both manuals warn the pilot against the dangers of using the ailerons too hard in dives, as there is a danger of structural failure (twisting forces).

Molders:
"It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land

The Spitfire is one class better. It handles well, is light on the controls, faultless in the turn and has a performance approaching that of the Bf 109......"

And he only had an 87 octane 2 stage prop aeroplane to test which is why he goes on to criticise it a little. I guess he changed his mind after the Battle of Britain lol

Full quote instead of the usual selective quoting:

"It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. The Hurricane is good-natured and turns well, but its performance is decidedly inferior to that of the Me 109. It has strong stick forces and is "lazy" on the ailerons.

The Spitfire is one class better. It handles well, is light on the controls, faultless in the turn and has a performance approaching that of the Bf 109. As a fighting aircraft, however, it is miserable. A sudden push forward on the stick will cause the Motor to cut; and because the propeller has only two pitch settings (take-off and cruise), in a rapidly changing air combat situation the motor is either overspeeding or else is not being used to the full."

So he though the Spitfire is not quite the same performance as the 109, and otherwise it's 'miserable'. I guess that concludes the story. ;)

Source please to 87 octane fuel only. Why would the Germans test an aircraft on 87 octane fuel, when supposedly all Spitfires were running on 100 octane, and would be captured in such state..? Hmm?

Yeah I did that one purpose because you already had, thus exposing your hypocracy. The model he had did not use 12lbs nor CSP - that is why it approaches the performance rather than exceeds it. An emergency bunt and run is a defensive move in a dogfight, very useful but not as a killing tactic.

Now why would exactly would they fuel it with 100 octane then Kurfurst? I though you said the RAF weren't using it. Prove to me that they put 100 in it - that's your claim not mine.

Sensible people can use deduction and logic anyway. The very fact that it is a 2 stage Spitfire means that it has a Merlin II and was in operation during the Battle of France, and that a Merlin II required conversion to accept 100 octane fuel and make use of 12lbs of boost in the first place. Then there is the fact that Molders doesn't mention use of the ABC which he would have had to use in order to get over 6.25lbs anyway.

So, either the LW decided to fuel an aircraft with a fuel that would destroy the engine or the RAF had all their fighters converted by the Fall of France but then decided to stop using it and convert them back again when the BoB started. Yeah, right.........just stop being so silly would you.

I note here that one of the sources listed is;
1 - Quoted from Page 61 - Osprey's Aircraft of the Aces - 'Spitfire Mk.I/II Aces' by Dr. Alfred Price.
ISBN 84-8372-207-0

Sic - it is on page 90, so not even that is right. Dr Price goes on to state

The report includes a series of graphs recording the information; incidentally

Reference 1. REQUIREMENTS FOR SATISFACTORY FLYING QUALITIES
OF AIRPLANES can be found here

That is not what I said. Pilots in the 1930's and 1940's were given only very elementary training in aerodynamics. It was considered unnecessary and demanded too much mathematical knowledge. That is straight out of the RAF Flying Manual.

They are not the experts in aerodynamics that we see today in the cockpit.

Glider,

The Spitfire Mk I had unacceptable longitudinal instability. The RAE knew it and corrected it in later marks.

It is a fact.

3/4 inch stick movement to run the usable Angle of Attack range at weak or neutral stability with light stick forces is going to make for a squirrely airplane.

;)

Read the report, the stick force gradient on the longitudinal axis was considered too light by most of the pilots.

By careful flying, maximum performance turns could be made.

The yaw wise stability experiences a pitch up with large deflections that coupled with the longitudinal instability caused the plane to experience rapid accelerations. That means it is very difficult for the pilot to precisely control the elevator. That asymetrical loading is what can cause the airframe to break apart in spin recovery.

Guys,

The Spitfire was a great airplane and a very effective fighter. There was no such thing as a Stability and Control Engineer when the Spitfire was designed.

It was a new science and almost all of the World War II era fighters have some sort of stability and control issue. It is just as important as the aerodynamics in their fighting abilities.

The Bf-109 had issues with the coupling effects of yaw-wise and the lateral axis at high speed.

The FW-190 and P-51 had longitudinal axis stick force reversals at low speeds.

Airplanes simply got faster and heavier so quickly that the engineering science did not keep up. It did matter so much when airplanes were slow and light.

The average military pilot might have had basic aerodynamics training but you can bet you ass test pilots had alot more.

Guys,

The Spitfire was a great airplane and a very effective fighter. There was no such thing as a Stability and Control Engineer when the Spitfire was designed.

It was a new science and almost all of the World War II era fighters have some sort of stability and control issue. It is just as important as the aerodynamics in their fighting abilities.

The Bf-109 had issues with the coupling effects of yaw-wise and the lateral axis at high speed.

The FW-190 and P-51 had longitudinal axis stick force reversals at low speeds.

Airplanes simply got faster and heavier so quickly that the engineering science did not keep up. It did matter so much when airplanes were slow and light.

This I totally agree with, problems were not unique to the Spitfire.

The Spitfire has unique stability and control characteristics.

The most outstanding issue is the Longitudinal Stability and Control of the early marks.

This was corrected in later variants.

Not really Bongo. They were the guys that had the balls to climb into an uproven machine.

Hans Sander related a story of performing a max G pullout from a dive in the early testing of the FW-190. The aircraft was well into the transonic realm of flight and upon recovery exhibited water vapor condensation behind the normal shock.

It turned the wings completely white for a second. He had no idea at the time what happenend and effect scared the pants off him at first. He thought something was wrong with the aircraft. He paused, ensured he had control of the aircraft and all engine indications were in the green. He was prepared to bail out if necessary.

You can see the same effect in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQDJG...eature=related

Nice video, what was it and what are wings? I don't know what this aerodynamite is you speak of.....I'm only a pilot.

In context, the pilots of the 1930's and early 40's had never experienced such a thing.

You selectively quoted on purpose to expose my hyporcracy.

Brilliant. :D

Nope I've said that only select squadrons have used it.


No comment.

Osprey pulls out a shotgun with a big grin...

... then shoots himself in the leg, twice, and finally falls into a punji. The crowd is absolutely blasted by the show.

Wasn't the claim 100 Octane was used in the Battle of France made in that thread?

:rolleyes:

Hurricanes in France did.

I think you confuse it with the one about 'poor Jerries reliedin the BoB entirely on British 100 octane stock captured in France'-thread. ;)

And this one is the 'yet they could not figure out how to put these captured stuff in Spitfires which were all supposed to run on the stuff by this time'-thread. :D

But everyone said that it was easy to fly, were all the pilots stupid of every nation. Or could it be that the training and the pilots notes did what they should do, warn and enable the pilots to get used to it.

All aircraft have their own unique feature, old and new. To pretend that only the Spitfire had its own problems is foolish pilots notes are not the be all and end all. Most planes have a warning that intentional spins should be avoided but they get spun. The notes are a warning, no more no less

Define easy to fly.

This is just not true. Spinning an aircraft that is not approved is just plain stupid. The only people that do it are those who do not understand the aerodynamics.

There is a good reason it is not approved to spin. Reason's like it does not recover for example.

Even aerobatic aircraft that must pass spin testing can enter unrecoverable conditions.

Why did this aerobatic aircraft enter an unrecoverable condition in a spin?

The pilot failed to adhere to the Operating Limits as listed in the Pilots Manual. He violated the airworthiness of the design. The aft CG flattened the spin until the dirt barrier stopped it.

http://www.flyingmag.com/safety/acci...overable-spins

Easy to fly doing what? A few circuits of the field, cross country cruise, rolls or loop or two? Sure it was easy to fly.

Easy to fly is very subjective. Longitudinal stability and control measurements and characteristics are not subjective. They are quantifiable characteristics with definitive limits.

You're arguing with non-engineers...

Evidently.

I thought I'd provide Molders full quote.

"it was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take off and land. The Hurricane is good natured and turns well, but it's performance is decidedly inferior to that of the Me 109. It has strong stick forces and is 'lazy' on the ailerons.
The Spitfire is one class better. It handles well, is light on the controls, faultless in the turn and has a performance approaching that of the Me 109. As a fighting aircraft it is miserable. A sudden push of the stick will cause the engine to cut, and because the propeller has only 2 pitch settings ( take off and cruise ), in a rapidly changing air combat situation the engine is either over-speeding or else not being used to the full."

It's a pretty fair assessment of the 2 pitch Spit.

And a few lines from the actual trials at Rechlin.

Before turning fights with the Me 109E, it must be noted that in every case, that all three ( Spitfire, Hurricane, Curtiss ) foreign planes have significantly smaller turning circles and turning times. An attack on the opponent as well as a disengagement can only be accomplished on the basis of existing superiority in performance.

What is interesting about the A&AEE trials is that the Spitfire used was using 100 octane and CSP. In May 1940. Which goes some way to explaing the difference between the British and German trials results.

I'm happy to concede that there was an issue with the 109 used. It was the same aircraft that was trailed against the Hurricane in France and if you compare the 2 trials there's a definite decline in the 109's performance between the 2 trials. There was a forced landing made between the 2 dates (about 2 months apart) which probably contributed to this.

I don't think either the Rechlin or A&AEE trails can be considered as 100% accurate. They are what they are! Tests of aircraft on both sides that were not particularly good examples of their types.

:grin:

It is funny that Morgan and Shacklady quote several pilots who disliked the Spitfire's elevator after the longitudinal instability was fixed by the addition of bob-weights.

They felt it ruined the feel and made the elevator sluggish.

I laughed when I read it.

I bet it did make it feel sluggish if you are used too 3/4 inch stick travel for the available Angle of Attack at 5 lbs per G in neutral or just statically stable!!

:shock:

Nope, the problem here is that someone who claims to know something about aviation can also make a blanket claim that the Spitfire was an inherently dangerous aircraft, based on two reports which say nothing of the sort.

What they do say is that it did not reach certain NACA standards which had been introduced in 1941 Reference 1. REQUIREMENTS FOR SATISFACTORY FLYING QUALITIES OF AIRPLANES can be found here

Nowhere in any of these reports does it state the Spitfire was dangerous. Strangely enough I actually agree with Kurfurst that it did have a sensitive elevator in certain conditions, but, whatever longitudinal instability it did have was controllable, and most pilots learned to handle it, including wet-behind-the-ears trainees transitioning from the Harvard, which could bite if pushed the wrong way.

All fighters are supposed to have a certain amount of controllable instability, otherwise they would not be able to manoeuvre effectively. Remember the BE2? This was an aircraft which was designed to be stable about all axes and it failed miserably as a fighter, and it was all too easy to shoot down because of that built in stability, although it made a great observation platform which was its original purpose. On the opposite pole there was the Camel which was dangerous to its pilots, although still effective when handled properly.

Guys, aircraft stability is not something that's subject to interpretation. Either an aircraft is stable about a particular axis or it is not.

Even NACA agrees that the Spitfire V did not have positive longitudinal stability.

"Stability" is a quantifiable property, not a subjective classification. An aircraft that is not statically stable can still have good flying qualities. To say that the Spitfire was not statically stable is not to say that all the pilots praising the Spit's handling qualities were wrong.

You guys are getting so caught up in your quest to prove Crumpp wrong that you're losing sight of the facts.

Maybe so but this isn't any indication of the 'dangerous instability' crumpp is pushing.
all it means is the spitfire was agile....a desireable quality in a fighter non?

No, not "maybe so".

The Spit V had zero stability, this is fact.

So how were mere humans able to fly them? total instability is the realms of 5th generation fighter jets that need computers to fly them.

Sorry but you guys are blowing it out your asses if you claim the spitfire had 'no' stability.

Neutral static longitudinal stability doesn't mean no stability at all.

I think maybe you should go learn about aircraft stability before you tell me I'm "blowing it out my ass" because you are incorrect.

There are three classifications of static stability: positive, negative, and neutral (or zero).

Don't be so hostile.

actually theres static and dynaminc, I don't need to learn anything from people claiming the spitfire was 'unstable', and believe me static (or neutral) stability is by no means unstable.

Sorry if I sound hostile, no intention but I understand.

Edited my post, as I was typing too fast. There are three conditions of static or dynamic stability: Positive, Negative, and Neutral. The spitfire had neutral (when i was in school we used the term "zero") static longitudinal stability. An aircraft can only be said to be statically stable if it has positive stability.

It's not my fault if you're misusing the accepted terminology. I've provided a reference from the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics that supports my case.

Go look up a reference that proves me wrong, showing the spitfire had positive static stability.