Spit IIa

[TomcatViP]

Guys we are now entering the irrational. What is not on the book or reported being said by only a few without charts & nbr as a back up is not debatable.

One thing is sure. Some can perform more than other and surely by a slight margin (there is no post stall manoeuvrability in a spit !) some did.

What we care here as a rendering of RL situation would be that very specific node were experienced will get trough with a "slight margin" of G and other that will fear a sudden stall or fail in an accelerated stall aggravated with a wing over with a minor slip angle (that we can all agree - it's documented).

Stick shaking would be not necessary (and hardly done without th erequired hardware compatibility) but head shaking and blur with increasing effect are example of what wld be "easy" to implement. Of course this is speculation. But damn me if any reader here won't prefer TC speculations to both of your tigers pi**ng contest.

On that base it is possible to compute the exact buffeting speed with both wings level and use a charts and RL experience for the resulting bank angle achievable before the stall.

Pls be constructive. I hve the feeling that we could help to build of delectable Spitfire at LEAST !

[IvanK]

Crumpp you really don't read what other people post. You sprout falsehoods with abandon, surprising for someone with a "Degree in aeronautical science". Your words just don't match that qualification !

[Crumpp]

Crumpp you really don't read what other people post.

I certainly switched off much of what you said at the constant "your wrong...blah, blah, blah" in your last post over how much lift a wing will produce at flow reversal causing buffeting.

I am sure you understand that aerodynamic buffet is the result of flow reversal of a portion of the wing.

It is especially silly when you flatly state the same thing I am saying and therefore agree in point.

The RAE themselves (They conducted the 109 vs Spitfire mock dogfights)

That is not what I read. The RAE was concerned that pilots were worried about the abrupt stall and subsequent spin entry being afraid to push the airplane. Any sane person would be afraid of that.

Pilots were not finding the limit as IvanK says:

IvanK says:
you ease the back pressure off to get back into the Buzz .... Ideally the very first hint of it.

And I clarified:

Crumpp says:
Ideally the very first hint of it...... No, Ideally you have none at all and are at the point just before any buffeting occurs. That is also what the Spitfire Mk I notes relate

Maximum turn performance will occur at the point just before buffeting begins as the Spitfire POH instructs. That is how the physics works. It does not matter what tricks our mind might play as we shake, rattle, and roll through a turn hunting for that 2D polar CLmax. If you just ease the stick forward to the point the buffeting stops, the airplane will increase in turn rate. With buffet....the entire wing is not working producing maximum lift force in the direction you want it to go....Without buffet...the entire wing is working at your command.

I wonder if when being at stall limit in a turn if the speed can be maintained? Usually induced drag increases quite a bit with increased angle of attack. And that's what one does: increasing angle of attack until buffeting. Here draf is highest. Consequence: Loss of speed ==> Closer to stall speed ==> Need to ease up on stick or gain speed by loosing altitude.

[CWMV]

Well...new patch 109 has a little more speed.
Without WEP I can get it up to and maintain 450kph, with WEP 460kph.
Cool with me.

[VO101_Tom]

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Stormcrow

I wonder if when being at stall limit in a turn if the speed can be maintained? Usually induced drag increases quite a bit with increased angle of attack. And that's what one does: increasing angle of attack until buffeting. Here draf is highest. Consequence: Loss of speed ==> Closer to stall speed ==> Need to ease up on stick or gain speed by loosing altitude.

Hi. If you turn with stall limit, the turning radius will be very tight, but the aircraft will be very slow (angular velocity is low). If you want to turn to a theoretical maximum angular velocity (constant speed, sustainable energy for a long time), you need the corner speed (this is a basic, well-known thing. It is taught in military academies).

[VO101_Tom]

Originally Posted by CWMV

Well...new patch 109 has a little more speed.
Without WEP I can get it up to and maintain 450kph, with WEP 460kph.
Cool with me.

So what changed?
Edit: These speeds are without WEP. The "Notleistung" is 20% plus power that these should be added (of course, the efficiency of the propeller and the air resistance due to the growth rate of less than 20%, but it is certain that more than 10km/h)

[CWMV]

+10 to 20kph/5 to 12mph
Of course that is with 10% fuel, at less than 10 meters, and no ammunition.
Did you not get an increase? I was always firmly stuck at 440kph before.

[VO101_Tom]

Originally Posted by CWMV

+10 to 20kph/5 to 12mph
Of course that is with 10% fuel, at less than 10 meters, and no ammunition.
Did you not get an increase? I was always firmly stuck at 440kph before.

I did not tested it today, just my PC performance. But I read that the Spitfire FM is unchanged too.

[CWMV]

In sustained level flight?
Thats what Im on about, maintained level flight for minutes on end. I was even able to barely touch 470, in level flight, for a few minutes.