Stability and Control characteristics of the Early Mark Spitfires

[Sandstone]

Originally Posted by robtek

All this together made the Spitfire to a thoroughbred which needed sensitive hands on the controls.

A plane for the virtuosos, not the ham-fisted.

And yet it was flown in combat, very successfully, by pilots with very low hours.

[robtek]

@ JTD

i'm not posting for your private tutoring.

@Sandstone

that is not mutually exclusive, i would believe that the more ham-fisted students would find themselves assigned to a Hurricane squadron or even BC.

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by robtek

i would believe that the more ham-fisted students would find themselves assigned to a Hurricane squadron or even BC.

You would believe wrong.

[robtek]

Originally Posted by Robo.

You would believe wrong.

Sorry, i didn't know that you are that old to be participating on the selection process then.
But please enlighten us all with your first hand knowledge.

[Al Schlageter]

My uncle was training on Seafires when the war ended. Us boys grilled pretty good on the a/c and never once did he mention the elevator was a problem like some are trying to do.

[JtD]

Little jump start for that list, a certainly extreme example:
- F4U with CoG at .334 MAC, trim 1.7° up (neutral at 300 mph, 8500ft): 0in stick travel and 5lbs push force to maintain 5.5g in a steady turn.

Anyway, I got no time for this. Whoever may be interested in getting it right instead of having the last word and discrediting others can certainly dig up more data on his/her own.

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by robtek

that is not mutually exclusive, i would believe that the more ham-fisted students would find themselves assigned to a Hurricane squadron or even BC.

If they were that ham fisted, they didn't survive the Harvard.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by robtek

Are you nuts???

No.. are you?

Originally Posted by robtek

Where in this thread have i ever talked about a 190 and its stall behaviour???

Please re-read my post and note that I never said you did..

I simply noted how hypocritical some of the blue minded members in this forum can take one airplane trait, in this case the acc stall 'flick' and refer to it as a negative trait when talking about non-blue planes and refer to it as a positive when talking about blue planes..

That is to say I was not specifically talking to you, as much as I was talking about some of the the blue minded members of this forum.

In short, if the shoe fits, ware it, if not than don't.

Originally Posted by robtek

Even Spitfire pilots used this accelerated stall flick roll as a last resort escape maneuver, i've read somewhere.

It is i. e. bad, when one is pursuing in a spit and it happens, changing the hunter to the prey in the worst case.

Btw, the 190 tactic was especially successful in a low level flight

Interesting..

So you agree that both the Spit and Fw190 had this trait..

And you also admitted how it can be a good trait when used to escape..

Yet in your previous post, when talking about the Spitfire you made no mention of the positive..

Only the negatives!

And it was not until I called you out on it that you agreed this trait can be a good thing.

Which speaks volumes about you IMHO..

For future reference

A more balanced approach, that mentions the pros and cons, would have brought a bit more credibility with it.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by robtek

i would believe that the more ham-fisted students would find themselves assigned to a Hurricane squadron or even BC.

Bomber Command had the first choice of the pilots. Apart from 1940/2 when training would cream off the best to be trained as instructors.

interestingly Germany had a similar problem with Bomber Units having the first choice of pilots and almost a monopoly on staff officers

[robtek]

Originally Posted by JtD

Little jump start for that list, a certainly extreme example:
- F4U with CoG at .334 MAC, trim 1.7° up (neutral at 300 mph, 8500ft): 0in stick travel and 5lbs push force to maintain 5.5g in a steady turn.

Anyway, I got no time for this. Whoever may be interested in getting it right instead of having the last word and discrediting others can certainly dig up more data on his/her own.

So you are saying that when a F4U at 300mph in level flight at 8500ft is banked it will make a 5.5 g turn without any pilot input except aileron for the banking
and 5 lbs forward pressure on the stick to keep the stick in neutral position?
If so, the plane is trimmed wrong for this turn.

To have a relation to the stick forces the planes should do a similar maneuvre , like a pull up, without airplane specific quirks, as the automatic 5.5g turn surely is one.

In the pull up the Spitfire with normal CoG and cruise speed needs three quarters of a inch stick travel with about 6lbs pull force to have a three g pull up.

I would be interested in the values of other planes in a similar set up.

I'm pretty sure the Spitfire values are pretty unique here.