The 'Great Debate' - Spitfire vs BF109
 

As suggested by FS~Phat in the performance testing thread, here is a thread to debate the relative merits and failings of these two most famous aircrafts. Hopefully this will allow the performance testing threads to fulfill their function whilst at the same time providing a space for people to post their own opinions regarding this evidently touchy subject.

To get the ball rolling, I will start. :)

All the evidence I have seen, which is mostly anecdotal suggests that; during the Battle of Britain, the early marks of both aircraft were very similar in performance, so similar in fact that victory was nearly always the result of things not related to the aircraft themselves, like pilot skill, numbers of aircrafts and tactical advantages (altitude, fuel, etc.) In terms of their relative performances however, I think it is safe to say a few things.

The Spit turns slightly better (smaller radius) than the 109 at all altitudes, particularly at lower speeds.

The 109 is slightly faster at all but the very highest altitudes, and certainly dives better.

Climb rates are tricky, I think that at different speeds, each aircraft may outshine the other.

The Spit was an easier aircraft to fly, and had marginally better visibility from the bubble cockpit, however the larger wing obscured the view to below more.

The 109 often had better armament which was easier to aim due to the fact it was more central on the airframe.

Both aircrafts killed more pilots during landing and takeoff than were lost in combat due to the high power/torque engines and the narrow track landing gear, but the 109 is slightly worse in this respect.

That's my opinions on the subject, and they are based on everything I have seen or heard regarding the matter. They are still simply opinions, however, and I do not claim them to be fact in any way at all.

Who's next?

Personally, I feel that debating the merits of each plane is just going to result in certain characters trotting out the same tired pilot anecdotes saying "Plane X out turns Plane Y" but without listing at what speeds and altitudes.

Then, people who don't understand science will extrapolate that statement to mean that Plane X should always win in a turn fight against Plane Y in all circumstances.

Personally, I feel that debating the merits of each plane is just going to result in certain characters trotting out the same tired theories saying "Plane 109 out turns Plane Spitfire" at all speeds and altitudes because it was 'magic' and german.

Then, people who don't understand anything will extrapolate that statement to mean that Plane 109 should always win in a turn fight against Plane Spitfire in all circumstances and history is all a lie.

They were both close enough in performance that tactics and pilot skill were the determining factor.

End of.

@Cpt. Doggles & Bongodriver.

That is exactly what this thread is for, so that these same tired old anecdotes/theories and personal bias/opinions do not get in the way of the performance testing threads whose purpose is to gauge exactly how the simulated aircraft perform. Here in this thread, these things are most welcome.

I have one more opinion to add,

The Spitfire was and is at all altitudes, speeds, air densities, humidity and temperatures; a much more beautiful aircraft than the 109!

:grin:

[QUOTE=Sammi79;444695The Spitfire was and is at all altitudes, speeds, air densities, humidity and temperatures; a much more beautiful aircraft than the 109!
:grin:[/QUOTE]

Beauitfull yes..'much more'?......No

Sry about the size...great detail though
http://img2.hebus.com/hebus_2006/06/...9143041_37.jpg
http://www.bundesheer.at/archiv/a200...itt_001_wg.jpg

Actually yes thats a point, I think it was a mods suggestion a thread like this was started, basically a 'boxing ring' for for people to batter each other with their fantasies.........I'm out.

Sammi79 - LOL nice one. I like them both, they're beautiful in their own way. Blonde and Brunette, Lidl and Aldi.. you know

I am always amused to see ppl flying only one side complaining and commenting on the other. :D

Can we have that in writing..

@Jamz

For me the spit is more gracious and the 109 more viril (obvious seeing that nose). Just like comparing a dolphin and a shark.

:cool: yeap

Lovely shots there ZeJamz, cheers!

Spit is still more beautiful than that warty looking thing though! :-P

TBH though, I agree with Robo, they both have their charm.

Spit more elegant, 109 more brutal.

Sorry Jamz but the 109 'is' beautifull but only beautifull like 'Zena warrior princess'....you would but it's far too Amazonian.

Its Beautiful, the Spit more so, granted

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

I like 'em both but my all time favorite plane esthetically-wise is the Hawker Sea Fury. Fell in love with it when I first saw it roaring by. It is a perfect melt between a Spit and a Focke ...

Prob the best sound you can get...

Love listening to that bird at airshows

If youve got headphones on..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlxtZSxF3pE

agree with the fury, it sounds and looks awesome, best display at flying legends this year as well,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yB8-IyLDIy8

Its the pinnacle of prop fighters development in my eyes (although best looking goes to the DeHavilland Hornet, wish there was still one around:( )

The Ash62 (a derived engine from the Wright Cyclone and older brother of the Ash 82) is also delightful to ear.

I was in Varradero/Cuba three weeks ago and every morning I was woke up by a low flying An2 skimming the roof top of this flat city built all in length on a finger like narrow peninsula. I don't know what those guys where doing but I did ear them 3 day in a row. My room was in a small building at the 3rd floor and the last day I had the time to jump out of the bed and run to the balcony just to see it nearly in profile and fully hear that beautiful grave tone that reveal nearly each stroke of its engine.

The girl that day might hve been really confused to see me getting exited that way oooops ;)

one of the best if not very usual sounds i've ever heard was an i16 at Duxford 2 years ago.

kinda sounds like its chewing itself apart!

Haha..yea i was there and heard that...

Ash62 = M25 ;)

A little-known fact about the Real Life Mark I & II Spitfires of 1940 Battle of Britain fame is that the pilots could slide the canopy back at any speed to listen for enemy a/c sneaking up from behind. The 109's couldn't do this because of their inferior side-opening canopy design. The Cliffs of Dover sim models this perfectly. I can't put my hands on any documentation of this, but I read it on the Internet, so it must be true.

Undoubtably. This would prove an adequate defense even against the Sea Furies, whose characteristic loud motors would give them away from about 2 kilometers.

This thread will be locked in time, I garentee it!

However whilst its still open, I'd like to point out the following:

THere is a difference to what a pilot wrote in a book years after an event and science fact. Im not saying any of the pilots were lying! I am saying somethings that they remembered as a first hand witness might not have been actually what was happening. Fear, adrenaline, perspective, where it was viewed from and many other things go into a memory. So without actual figures from instrument recorded flights then unfortunatley all pilot accounts are "hearsay". :(

I hope not, so far it has remained light hearted, for more than 20 replies! this seems to me to be quite unusual at the moment!

I see your valid point and raise you a further consideration:

In the absence of the scientific information (which can also be flawed depending on the controls of the tests etc.) the best that can be done is a meta analysis of these first hand anecdotal accounts. the mean results of the combined whole of these accounts will be more accurate than any individual account, and if that is all that there is to go on, then we should go with that IMHO.

Regards,
Sam.

Rubbish, although what you said has to be taken into account, to ignore first hand evidence as hearsay completely is ridiculous imo.

Ver very weak argument, the recall of these guys is way more than just skewed perspectives, these are memories forged from life or death scenarios, they would have analysed and recounted them over and over as young men and would have remained as lucid as their menory of a first love.

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit1-109espeed.jpg


No wonder Galland asked for a squadron of Spitfires...

overrev option: +15km/h above FTH
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...2&d=1336899153

@Seadog : this graph is highly controversial... but you know that alrdy

Corr blimey...

If i had a pound........

Are you serious?

Anything that shows Luftwaffe aircraft trailing RAF aircraft in performance is automatically deemed "controversial" by the 100 Octane Deniers club.

bugmenot.


Do you know of any Me109e pilot accounts of using the 1min rating in the BofB during combat?

That's all you need to say really. Everything else argued about in terms of relative performance and handling characteristics on these boards between the Spitfire and '109 (or the reds v the blues) is because we sit in the comfort of our own homes chasing pixels around a screen with a refly button.

The dicta Boelcke was valid from 1915 until the advent of the guided air to air missile. Everything discussed here must be considered within the context of historical reality. That reality was make sure you see your opponent first. Manoeuvre into a position of tactical advantage. Fire and then manoeuvre to retain the tactical advantage.

All successful fighter pilots were able to creep up behind their victims, blew their brains out and run away to do it again.

It's true in real life, but ingame the things are a little different... because of this there are so many threads about aircraft's raw performance. Aircraft skills are far more important here than in real life.

That's not true. I don't have any preferences for the LuftW. I fly red as much as I fly on blue side. The only thing I am battling is the Fantasies of some Spit's illusionists. So I am a non-believer of the theories some are putting frwrd. And once more, this is legitimate in a forum (read it in the ancient roman sense).

Which "fantasies" are you referring to?

Fantasies like this one? :-)

No wonder Galland asked for a squadron of Spitfires...

I think he means the ones where the Spitfire is credited with 'any' comparative ability against the 109.

blablabla... nobody care Bongo. Keep concentrate on the subject today for once

Oh and which subject would that be then?

Then we would be better off discussing the response time of the human synaptic system or even which popular joystick on the market has a better response curve. We seem to want historically accuate flight models so we can turn them into some online ego travesty.

Agreed, like the port wing dropping in the stall first on the 109.

RoF has no data like we do for WW2 aircraft. As such their flight models are based upon this kind of info. ;)


Sorry Sammi, but the graphs are out now and that only means one thing...

Regards.


I didnt mean totally ignore first hand accounts. I ment the graphs are data are pretty concrete. The memories - not so much.



Two things that make certain its not nessicarly a accurate! - indeed.



Its the same as police witness statements. You can have ten witnesses all saying something different...

Farber...does your rule apply to the LW veterans annecdotes too?

Of course... :-P


What about the BoB pilot reports where both Spitfire and 109 pilots claimed the other NEVER turned inside of the other and vice versa? Its circumstancial to that pilots experience and perspective, place and time, air speeds and energy and the perspective of those from thier own judgement and perspective... This doesnt mean it is not true! However as there are so many conflicting reports we can only resign such reports to "folklore" and use the factually evidence of air speed climb rate etc... Only when many pilots agree on something can we consider to use it. - For example the port wing dropping near landing aproaching the stall and other such minor things.

OK, Galland states in his memoirs, The First and the Last, that he asked for an "...outfit of Spitfires, for his group..."

Inadmissible using Farbers logic, Galland wen't on to say it was out of frustration and had no bearing on how he rated the Spitfire but of course being a human recounting a tale from the past he obviously didn't know what he was speaking about and he probably really did wan't a squadron of Spitfires.

Understand that Galland was a dignitary of the Nazi regime and as such might have needed to pleased the ear of the winners. Have yuou seen the vid when he did say that ? Hve a look, you'll understand what I mean.

This anecdote was debated by historian and among prime witnesses of that "scene" when asked the question replied that they don't remember G. saying that to RMG.

But once again and blablabla...

As we have seen, graphs and the interpretation of any data can be challenged because of the number of variables involved and whether the people producing these graphs were even aware of these variables.

Pilot, sorry, eyewitness accounts and memoirs are very often contemporaeneous to the events themselves and most were written if not during the war years then in their fairly immediate aftermath with logbooks and combat reports to back it up. Both RAF and LW accounts share a remarkable commonality in their fear of the bounce, the acceptance that most pilots shot down never saw their opponents and the acceptance that following an opponent round and round and round in a dogfight would invite a hail of lead from an unseen opportunist.

Arguments on every flight sim forum I've ever visited about aeroplane performance always degenerate into some "expert" denying the veracity of pilot accounts that differ from their own dearly held views because they know their graphs hold the real truth.

Hmm so we can also discount Gallands assement of the 109e/Spitfire as being "...not so suitable for purely defensive purposes as the Spitfire, which, although a little slower, was much more manoeuvrable..."

Since we all know that the Spitfire was somewhat faster...;)

+1

However the graph like the memories applied sensibly in the correct ratio should be good enough. You can never please everyone.

We cant have it 100% accurate. Afterall we are all aces in the virtual world...

+1!

Very true, and the vast majority of RAF fighters were lost this way, as their primary task was to attack the bombers, thus leaving themselves open to being bounced, however this doesn't excuse Clod from poorly modelling the performance of RAF fighters.

And what does he say after that paragraph? How does he end the issue?

"...Such brazen-faced impudence made even Goering speechless. He stamped off, growling as he went..."

Cue Bongodriver using my statement against it even though its not what I ment. :-P

It's probably true, but only for the Hurricanes... since the main role of Spitfires was to engage the fighters, leaving the bombers to more stable and armed Hurricanes.

Hello...

I don't want to search in the book for the exact quote... I thought you would be honest to report the right part, but probably I was wrong...

Anyway he states that he did it only to piss Goering off and he still preferred the 109...

Honestly, are you posting here in a serious way or really do you like to manipulate facts?


Bah.. I'm out...

I knew you wouldnt do it if I wrote that. Now you hurt my feelings :( :-P

+1

Me too. ;)

Actually incredible. 70 years have past and people still debate this thing ...

I knew you knew that if I knew you knew that I knew, then I knew I would.......wait......I knew that if you knew....no.....you...no....gimme a sec.....carry on chaps.

Very popular but historically inaccurate misconception. Squadrons were ordered to scramble and engage in accordance with their availability and their proximity to approaching enemy formations. Type of aircraft flown counted for nought in the summer of 1940.

Of course you knew, your clever like that. ;)

as cunning as a fox who's just been appointed Professor of Cunning at Oxford University.

I hope you were wearing your parachute...;)

Here's a longer quote:

Note that "group" implies that he actually asked for more than one squadron...:grin:

I actually posted this to show how any realistic assessment of Spitfire is always disputed by a select few, even when it comes from the Luftwaffe side.

Do yo know that among the pilots present that day, nobody recall that story as it was found latter ?

As I already said above :


If you are able to do this with an enormous sense of relativity try to imagine the Raptor's pilots stating in front of the camera that they would ask Panetta to buy Flankers in China (J-11). ;)

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/fighte...ry?id=16294011

IIRC, he was talking about OKL requirement the 109's fly alongside the bombers in visual range and the bombers cruise speeds.

Isnt it, "as cunning as fox thats just graduated in cunning at oxford univeristy and recently been apointed professor of cunning at said university"?

But you know, thats eyewitness statements... :-P

No thats pure plagiarism....

Is it? How come were not discussing the OP? :rolleyes:

Regarding the stall and to add material to what I was describing when Bf109 and Supermarine Spitfire are in a turn fight, here come an extract of the doc available here : http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...1993092582.pdf

As you can see, Stall manoeuvring require a lot of power and degrade the ability to turn tight (Cl reduced).

Note :
- "Average" as it was hard to precisely control the amount of G you wished (see Crumpp thread)
- The violent stall buffet was characterized by an abrupt unloading from 5G to 1G

This is inherent to elliptial wings that, ideally (means theoretically), are stalling at once (no tip stalling like with a tapered planform or at the wing roots like a rectangular one).

As I hve said it many times, a turning fight with a SPit Vs 109 hve many similarities with that of a Mirage200 vs an F16 all proportion guarded. You might be interested to document yourself on the latter example to get an idea of what I am trying to describe.

EDIT: click here to see what I was writing http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...&postcount=107

This is where extra research is your friend Tomcat. Lookup 'washout' in terms of Spitfire wings. You could be surprised.

The Spitfire buffet that so many Spitfire pilots talked about was dure to this washout. The wing stalled at the root first, providing the rumbling feedback that so many Spitfire pilots have quoted as riding - the outer wing and the ailerons were still flying giving until the stalled airflow moved outwards if the turn was tightned or speed decreased or both.

So, wrong on that one I'm afraid.

did you read the doc ?
1. graph is stated with "no washout"
2. the test describe a real flight test

I am not professoring Fenhir. I give explanation. Stall description -> theorized phenomena.

The goal is to make more players aware and immune to evangelist of one side or another.

But I cloud hve completed with more: look af the Re along the wing. You'll understand why ell wing are an illusion.

Or with the wing spar.

Geo Wash out is to prevent stall eh yeah and prevent aileron loss of ctrl. But in the case of that wing planform it's a draggy configuration. And drag and lift I was talking about little Jedy.

but buffet is due to the aero washout (the turbulence hitting the elevator) not the geometrical washout on the wing.

If you had take the time to read the doc linked in my post, you'd see this point. I gave plenty of info for the reader to make his own mind and to draw the same conclusion. You'd see, it's an honest behaviour far far away from a post that pick parts of the info and mud it with sarcasms.

Hve fun

Taking a look at it a different way the Difference between the Spit and the 109 tended to flow as different types came into service.

From a personal point of view this is how I see it.

BOB
I go for the Me109 as I prefer its weapons and also because by simply pushing the stick into a neg G the 109 has a very effective escape option that is very quick and very easy to do even by the rawest of recruits.

Me109 F2 vs Spit IIb
I go with the SPit as the weapons on the F2 were too light, something quickly resolved

Me109 F4 vs Spit V
For fighter vs fighter the Me109 had the edge, but it has to be said that the SPit was more flexible as a GA aircraft.

Spit IX ve Me109 G
The SPit IX had the advantage. It was a better HA fighter, the increased speeds of both aircraft also played into the hands of the SPit. Both were affected but the Spit was less impacted and finally the GA was becoming more important for both sides and the SPit was a better GA aircraft, Not a great one but better than the Me109.
Early 109G's had a serious problem with wing failures again resolved but its a factor.

Spit XIV vx 109 G
just magnified the difference

Summary
For the first half of the war the difference was close but the SPit was more flexible and this showed in the second half of the war. Finally in the often forgotten but vital PR role the difference was huge in the Spits favour.

Topcat
You keep posting this as if its undeniably right but I believeit t have some serious items missed so have posted my comments. I do not pretend be an expert in areodynamics but was taught the basics a long time ago.

Feel free to correct my memory

Well once again you are picking extract here and there to build an argument. I only wonder if you did build yourself that way (I speak rudely tht way because I don't like your tone and especially the way you behave as ever tht look like to say: hummph, if you can't answer to this right now then you fail).

I thought it was my aruements that upset you not tone

At first, did you notice that we are talking rather differently of slow speed turns ? All the argumentation is based on physics and pilot accounts and turn around the stall characteristic of the Spit wing.

I had noticed and I also noticed that in the flight tests the Spitfire could stay with the Me109 when the Me 109 stalled. This I believe to be clear evidence that the Spit was better at slow speed.

if you take the both the 109 and the Spit at constant turning speed the SPit will always have an inferior radius as the Hurri will have with the Spit.

You do have examples of this don’t you.? If so I invite you to post them remembering that the RAF and Luftwaffe test establishments both agreed that the Spit would easily turn inside the Me109, as did the pilots both German and RAF who flew the Spitfire
The prob with the SPitfire is her configuration : the thin wing, the wide chord, the low span ratio and the elliptical shape. In the order of appearance it will increase the AoA, aggravate the drag generated by the turbulence around the airfoil and aggravate the stall characteristic and makes the airflow around the wing tips unpredictable (hence the exaggerated washout).

Wrong I am afraid. In the order of appearance
The thin wing - reduces drag, I am not aware of it increasing the AoA,

The chord - the elliptical wing may not differ as much as you think from the Me109. As I remember it it’s the Mean Aerodynamic chord that matters. On a wing such as the Spit the Mean Chord is some way out from the fuselage as there is a significant difference from the root of the wing and the tip. The Me109 wing doesn’t at first glance change much and will be closer to the root of the wing. There will be a difference but not as much as at first glance.

The elliptical wing - is particularly good for low drag. and while the washout will have an impact on the lift, it does give the ideal warning before the aircraft stalls. It should be noted that the washout on the Spitfire is not exaggerated. Indeed the washout on an elliptical wing is far less than the washout needed for a tapered wing to have the same impact
The more you turn, the more E you loose. This E deficit is only compensated by your engine. The more excess of power you have the more time you will stay in that configuration. The Spitfire had less P/W ratio than the 109 (except perhaps in your 12lb+ dreams and what will come next in your request) and thicker wings.

Partly right but you have forgotten the impact of drag which is at least as important. I do not know the figures for these two aircraft. The 12lb boost was in common use in the BOB and the PW ratio was very close even without the extra boost.
It should be noted that in the flight tests by both the German and RAF test establishments the spit always turned better whilst maintaining height. Which would indicate that the impact of Drag vs PW was if anything in favour of the Spitfire
You think you are a pilot so you know what come next..
Of Gliders where PW ratios are not a real issue.

The Spit will have to turn slightly nose down to compensate for the E loss generated from her draggier turn characteristic and inferior P/W and stay away from the low speed/high AoA/Split angle and bank dangerous situation. Invariably the plane with better stall behavior and superior P/W will stay longer in a turn where the speed decrease hence will loose less alt.

So either the Spit pilot will have to unleash the G before his opponent or will he start to spiral down.

In a turn fight, alt his G (you add the Gravity force to what your plane can do).
I believe this to based on a false assumption as outlined above. You also ignore the lift available, there is lift in a turn and that should be considered
Talking about the 109 and Spits models alternatively taking the leads in the perf race is all about this: the aerodynamics and the P/W ratio. Once one get the upper hands, it felt more dynamics in a dogfight and keep that ounce of extra E to get the advantage in a high G engagement.

the fact is that the Emil model had the advantage during BoB.

As mentioned before if you can find more than one German orf RAF pilot who believes that then again I invite you to post it.

Just like The FW190 enjoyed before the IX was launched. (yeah I know you also believe that the 190 was the tank Oleg sold to us with the first opus of IL2)
As mentioned before can you tell me where I ever said that the Fw 190 was less than exceptional? You do have a habit of making statements like this which are wrong I invite you again to support your statement or withdraw it

In the turn, the violent buffet is a double edged sword. There is no such thing as a free lunch especially in physics. In the NACA measured results, encountering the buffet represents a change in available angle of bank. The airplane goes from 78.5 degrees of bank to 60 degrees of bank in one second.

****5G @ 147.73KIAS:

ROT = 1091*tan(78.5) divided by 147.73 KIAS = 36.2 degrees a second

****2G @ 141.647 KIAS:

ROT = 1091*tan(60) divided by 141.647 = 13.34 degrees a second

As a quick ballpark using IAS to get an idea of the scope of the effect on turn performance, we see the rate of turn drop from 36.2 degrees a second to 13.34 degrees a second. That means our time to complete a 360 degree turn changes from 10 seconds to 27 seconds!!!

As the Operating Notes relate, you do not want to turn any airplane in the buffet. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, all the energy that was being used to achieve an instantaneous performance rate of turn of 36.2 degrees a second from our ballpark went to warn the pilot of an impending stall, taking the aircraft right down well inside its sustainable performance envelope of 13.34 degrees a second.

@ glider: Eugh. Please learn to quote.

Eg:

I agree the elevator is going to be hard to control from the buffet moments and disturbed flow off the wings.

The buffet itself is caused by flow reversal in the stall portion of the wing. As the flow reverses, it creates suction which creates drag, as our drag goes up, so does our lift. On the thrust axis, weight and engine thrust have to oppose that drag and the airplane will move to a new equilibrium point.

The large ample stall warning buffet comes from high energy flow reversal.

Something doesn't sound right here, the suction you are talking about is lift....how can there be lift if it is stalled....no lift = no induced drag.

No, suction is what happens when the boundary layer seperates.

Watch the tufts, they reverse direction at the stall point for the section. That is a vacuum over that part of the wing creating suction. You can see the tips of the wing over the ailerion is still flying nicely while the inboard portion of the wing is stalled.

Buffet comes from a portion of the wing stalling. It does not mean the entire wing is stalled or the airplane is not in controlled flight.


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

No when the boundary layer separates the center of lift moves aft and flow on the undeside of the wing is allowed to curl up over the trailing edge, this simly causes turbulence behind the wing.

Light buffet comes from the separation but for most aircraft the significant stall buffet is from the turbulent air impinging on the tailplane.

Washout is what prevents the tips of the wing stalling before the inboard.

This is the part I'm most curious about, sounds counter intuitive, increased lift increases induced drag, past the stall then form drag increases but I have never heard of an increase in drag inceasing lift?..

Okay tomcat, my bad, you have my apologies. I only scan read the links and didn't get what you actually communicating. It was late and I was tired but still, should have made sure I understood your post before replying. Interesting stuff, now that I've read it properly.

Sorry again for the flippant response.

The Buffet is not a double edged sword. It is easily and immediately recognisable and resolving the issue is equally easy and immediately effective, all you do is ease off the stick until the buffet goes. It is easy to fly on the edge, you 'feel' for the start of the buffet and ease off as applicable, the normal process is to hold it on the edge with gentle movements once you have found the buffet. You don't fly in the buffet, you can fly to the buffet and then its easy to stay outside the vibration

To pull through the buffet would be dangerous, stupid and also difficult to do, the vibration would rattle your teeth and its impossible to miss it. One benefit of using the buffet is that you do this with your head looking out of the cockpit, you don't need to look at any instruments and because it is something you feel it doesn't matter how noisy it is.

I once got caught in a thunder cloud in a strong thermal. Water got into my instruments, the only one I had working was an audio vario that told me by sound if I was climbing and an indication as to how fast I was climbing. To stay in the thermal in the cloud, I had to rely totally on the audio vario and the buffet giving me warning of the stall as I had no idea how fast I was going. By staying on the edge of the stall, flying outside the buffet just feeling for it every now and then, I was able to say in the thermal and ensure that I didn't exceed the Vne.

I say this as it proves that its effective in the most difficult situations

Sure it is and you understand you don't fly in it for maximum turn performance.

Absolute 110% agree. You are absolute right.

It is easy to do in a stable airplane.

Not really, In fact accelerated stalls are a testable maneuver for a Commercial rating, now.

The amount and energy of the buffet depends on the airplane design too. Some airplanes don't even buffet before the stall. You get just a nibble and its gone!

Not sure what you mean here. The aerodynamic center does not change with AoA.

The Center of Pressure moves forward with increased angle of attack and disapates at the stall.

Is that what you mean? The CP moves forward, the AC is stationary and when the CP is gone, down the wing comes about the AC.

Cause otherwise you have it backwards, the CP moves backwards in infinity as we approach zero lift AoA.

One of the reason's why CP is obsolete.


All true. Some airplanes the turbulence is the predominate factor. As a general rule though, it is the buffet.

In fact, it is really not good design to put the tail in the wings wake. It can lead to an unrecoverable stall condition. That is the big issue with T-tails.

Near the stall incidence, in most airplanes, the tail by design is in clean air.

Well it is the co-efficients not the forces. In level flight we are lucky our lift force remains constant.

The co-efficients have a direct relationship. So as the airplane's co-efficient of lift increases, the co-efficient of drag increases.

Drag, unlike lift does not remain constant. So when our CL increases lift force stays the same but our drag force goes up.

to be honest, I'm used to BnZ tactics from Rise Of flight with the spad and other aircraft, so I tend to not really fly the spit as well as I could. I turn with it too much

Clearly I have no experience in a Spit but I do have some in aerobatic gliders which are close to the edge. The best are borderline unstable as are fighters, it isn't difficult to recover and they also have very light controls. All you have to do is ease off the stick a touch and you will immediatly recover. Its an almost instinctive reaction.

Stable gliders and I assume fighters are hard work, the physical effort involved can be very tiring and that in itself can make flying close to the edge of the envelope difficult. Some of my first aerobatic lessons were done in a Twin Astir and you had to really haul it around, she was too stable. Close to the edge the lighter touch gives you a better 'feel' for what is going on with the aircraft.

It is a complete fallacy that manueverability and stability are linked by an inverse relationship.

"Just statically stable" has nothing in common with "borderline unstable".

I assure you I have nothing 'backward', I said nothing about Aerodynamic centre.
as the AoA increases the CP moves forward until the departure, the CP then moves to the back of the wing and doesn't dissapear, CP may be an obsolete mathematical model but the real world low pressure we know as the CP behaves as I describe, again I'm wondering where all the aerodynamic lessons are taking us?

as you said all true, not sure where T-tails bear relevance here.

How does this answer my question? you didn't explain how drag inceases lift.

Yes it is because it does NOT accurately describe what happens in the real world.


As a general rule though, it is the buffet.

It is not good design to put the tail in the wings wake.

I certainly did explain it. What part did you not understand? Exam these graphs and maybe you will understand.

Look at the AoA chart. If the wings AoA increases, then our lift co-efficient increases and so does our drag coefficient.

If we add drag, then our wing will change angle of attack to compensate because it requires more power. Our lift coefficient will increase.

The relationship of lift to drag is fixed by design.

Thumb up M8 ;) 8-)

But is 'does'

the buffet as a result of the turbulence impinging on the tailplane yes, we are talking about conventional aircraft here, you know the ones with the tail at the back like almost every aircraft flying even today has it, where the empennage is very much in the wake of the wings.

I see a Cd curve which continues on a smooth path and seems unaffected by anything, a Cl curve falling off at the stall and a standard L/D arc that also seems pretty unremarkeable but nothing showing how drag increases lift.

the wing changes AoA all by itself? where does the 'more power' come from, these things don't happen unless demanded by the pilot and you certainly don't seem to be suggesting that.

yes it is, the L/D curve is the combined effect of Cd and Cl, in all your little graphs all I can see is the drag continually rising but lift dropping off at the stall, where exactly am I supposed to be looking if I want to see drag increasing lift.....am I being too litteral? I am only asking because you said verbatim 'drag increases lift'

Do you actually even read what gets posted or do you just pick out bits and pieces? It's blatantly obvious that "putting the tail in the wake" was referring to the wake of a wing at high AoA, where the elevators won't be able to get you out of a stall. :rolleyes:

Same with your post in the other thread. "Are you equating combat flying with flying a circuit pattern?" Ummm... NO. Read all the sentences that are posted, not just bits and pieces, and then maybe you won't get so worked up about it.

Very much so.....do you?

is that so?.......why are we discussing a condition that does not relate to the Spitfire then? Crumpp said it himself 'deep stall' (that's what it's called) is a condition relating to T-tails......name me a common T-tailed WWII fighter, either way the tailplanes on conventional aircraft feel the turbulence from the stalled wing and that is the heavy buffet, this will vary according to aircraft but it's the more common situation.

Then why did he say anything about flying a pattern?......oooohh sarcasm of course....well in which case I had the right to treat it with contempt.

Don't tell me what to do, I read everything I need to, what is your excuse for getting worked up?....now back on topic please.

:rolleyes:

Sorry Crumpp but this statement is totally wrong. A Ground Attack aircraft is normally very stable as it spends a lot of time at very low altitude where the air is rougher. However it is normally less responsive to inputs from the controls as the wing is designed to soak up rough air.

A fighter has a lighter touch and the reponse times are more immediate.

To use the Glider examples the Twin Astir was used to teach basic aerobatics but it was hard work. Most of the training was done on a K21 a very popular glider which incidently was almost impossible to spin. When I did an advanced course we used a Fox glider, a dedicated aerobatic glider. This was very sensitive and needed a gentle touch.

I have no doubt that all three were technically stable but the dedicated aerobatic Fox was far more sensitive, and responded to any input.

I work on the basis that the SPitfire was like other fighters the equal of the Fox.

Glider, if they wanted to make it unstable or even neutraly stable, they would hve taken great care that the ailerons had the same sensitivity. It's quite unpleasant to have to make wide move in the roll axis when you've got a narrow travel range longitudinally.

The fact is that many bi-plans were marginally stable (inherent to their shape and short fuselage). Perhaps that experienced professional military pilots with years of flying the biplans in the 30's didn't bother that much that Spit annoying characteristic in regard of the general perfs improvement.

Tomcat
Find any pilot of any nation including German ones, who found the Spitfire difficult or unpleasent to fly. If it was as difficult as people are making out you should be able to find someone.

Just remember that Molders described the SPitfire as being faultless in a turn and childishly easy to take off and land. He found it much easier that the Me109.

Stability depends on what you want out of the aircraft. As I tried to show with the different Gliders, the dedicated aerobatic Fox was far more sensitive than the others. A Fighter needs to be more sensative than any other type of fighting machine because of what it does.
This goes back to the first air combats in WW1. Generally speaking the first RFC fighting aircraft were too stable and couldn't mix it with the German fighters. This trend was broken with later fighters until the Camel which was probably too far the other way. Even here the establishment SE5a was more stable than the Camel. Stability is't one measurement, there are degrees of stability. Many bi-plans were marginally stable as you say, but many were very stable it depended what you wanted out of the design.

I admit that I don't understand your statement they would hve taken great care that the ailerons had the same sensitivity The ailerons are the same in each wing, but its late and I might be missing something obvious.