Spitfire supposed to dive better than the 109?

[CaptainDoggles]

Originally Posted by Glider

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

Mind you the wings stayed on

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

[bw_wolverine]

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

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

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

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

Very cool nevertheless!

[CaptainDoggles]

Originally Posted by bw_wolverine

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

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

Very cool nevertheless!

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

[bw_wolverine]

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

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

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

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by bw_wolverine

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

Eric 'Winkle' Brown did it, it was his job to do these types of things.

Read his book, it is excellent, he did a lot of nutcase things, like the time he flew a helicopter from Liverpool to Farnborough for the first time after just reading the manual!

[Baron]

Originally Posted by bw_wolverine

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

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

Very cool nevertheless!

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

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


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

[senseispcc]

.
Do also remember that the first Spitfire did have fabric covered control surfaces how where dangerous in a dive.

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by senseispcc

.
Do also remember that the first Spitfire did have fabric covered control surfaces how where dangerous in a dive.

Actually the roll response at these diving speeds (say above 350mph) was better in the Spitfire than the 109. There are graphs available displaying roll vs speed from tests

[robtek]

Originally Posted by Osprey

Actually the roll response at these diving speeds (say above 350mph) was better in the Spitfire than the 109. There are graphs available displaying roll vs speed from tests

I really doubt that, as i've read a report about Aileron tests on Spitfires in 1941 where is written that the Spitfire Ailerons loose 65% effectiveness at 400 mp/h because of wing twist, and that 54 lbs force are needed to get a 3°deflection on them.

Aileron reversal speed at 10000 ft was 477 mph ias.

The Rudder and the elevator of the 109 did get very stiff at highest speeds, but the ailerons also? And more that the spitfire ones with their reduced effectiveness?

[Osprey]

I've lost interest in this, fanboys are here and then the mods will arrive to stop people saying things to each other.