Stability and Control characteristics of the Early Mark Spitfires

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by 6S.Manu

Please explain to me what is the reason to quote that the Spitfire was more manouvrable of the Zero at high speed... above all when the argument was totally another one.

The subject of this thread is directly related to the Spitfire's flight qualities, so pointing out that at high speed it could outmanœvre one of the most manœverable fighters of its generation is perfectly reasonable in the context of the discussion, so take your own advice and do this in a mature way.

Once again there are no forum rules stopping anyone from posting comments on the flight qualities of German, Japanese or Italian aircraft.

[bongodriver]

Completely, absolutely, utterly false and extremely dangerous attitude.

only if you decide to ignore the warning and 'not' wear the safety glasses.

[6S.Manu]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Completely, absolutely, utterly false and extremely dangerous attitude.

Engineering tolerances are naturally tight due to the physics of flight. The POH instructions are part of the airworthiness of the design.

In the famous 100 Octane thread, I posted the convention that makes compliance a legal issue. The Operating Instructions carry the weight of law from the aviation authority of the convention signer. Only by explicit instruction is deviation authorized. An example of that explicit instruction is found in the RAF General Pilot's Operating Notes.

Statistically, deviation from those instruction is a factor in the vast majority of aviation accidents whether the deviation, such as the allowance for combat in the RAF General Pilot's Notes, is authorized or not.


All of this is off topic. Start another thread if you want to discuss POH compliance issues.

Sorry fot the OT Crumpp, but I think that there's nothing more to talk about in this threat.

Are you planning to open a new one for the 109? I'm really interested about it!

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by 6S.Manu

Do we have to make a poll do decide which plane is the first one to be analysed? Above all by a person who actually does it for free and it's not one of our employers?.

Employers?

Who said anything about a poll?....there you go making bizarre statements again, I'm just saying it's no coincidence that the issue started with the Spitfire and I gave the reasons why.

Originally Posted by 6S.Manu

I've not problem on which one is the first plane... we have to start from something.

easy to say

Originally Posted by 6S.Manu

Why useless? Does realistic mean useless?.

Lets see, it has to be so unstable that only very skilled pilots can fly it, it must break up if you do a hard manouver, it must have very dangerous stall/spin characteristics, it must have bad turning characteristics against a 109.....all of this has had evidence to show it's not true but because of one guy and his NACA report on a different variant everybody thinks it was written by god?

Originally Posted by 6S.Manu

You say "then"... if a new feature is been added to the FM engine I expect it to be modelled in every plane... implementing a new v2.0 FM for a model leaving the other plane with the v1.0 is not a professional way to act... of wait.. about IL2 I remember new Lods against old ones... I don't want something like that..

Whaa?

Originally Posted by 6S.Manu

It's not about you... it's about a guy who I put into my ignore list since I was being anti-British claiming that the Spitfire myth is partially born because it's a simbol of the British's win. As P51 for the americans, T34 for the russian ect. does that make me an anti-american and anti-russian?.

I still find the statement offensive...please remove it, at least I'm being 'grown up' about it and giving the opportunity....not a courtesy extended to myself very often.

Originally Posted by 6S.Manu

Please explain to me what is the reason to quote that the Spitfire was more manouvrable of the Zero at high speed... above all when the argument was totally another one.

Constant accusations of having a red v blue agenda are apparently trolling.....unless it's an accusation coming from the blue side apparently.

[Crumpp]

Sorry fot the OT Crumpp, but I think that there's nothing more to talk about in this threat.

I think you are right. I will get the bugtracker posted. Been busy at work.

I would like to the do the Hurricane next but will leave it open to what the community wants to do.

Granted, the Hurricane will probably be a short thread as it does not have the emotional response of the Spitfire and its stability and control is not so dramatic as the Spitfire's.

[6S.Manu]

@Bongo: I'll reply by PM

Originally Posted by Crumpp

I think you are right. I will get the bugtracker posted. Been busy at work.

I would like to the do the Hurricane next but will leave it open to what the community wants to do.

Granted, the Hurricane will probably be a short thread as it does not have the emotional response of the Spitfire and its stability and control is not so dramatic as the Spitfire's.

I hope it to be about the 109, so that everybody is going be satisfied.

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by 6S.Manu

I hope it to be about the 109, so that everybody is going be satisfied.

That would be the natural choice, so one has to wonder why another British a/c.

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by 6S.Manu

@Bongo: I'll reply by PM



I hope it to be about the 109, so that everybody is going be satisfied.

Reply to what?......still nothing received.

don't hold your breath hoping, Crumpp will never make a 109 thread, by the time the Hurri one is done he will say it's all not worth the effort because of red fanboys etc etc....

p.s. still waiting for you to remove the comment.

[Seadog]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

I think you are right. I will get the bugtracker posted. Been busy at work.

I would like to the do the Hurricane next but will leave it open to what the community wants to do.

Granted, the Hurricane will probably be a short thread as it does not have the emotional response of the Spitfire and its stability and control is not so dramatic as the Spitfire's.

Why not a thread on the deadly stability and control issues of the Me109?

Range of Investigation. – The handling tests covered the following ground : – ease of take-off and landing ; trim and stability ; " one control " tests, flat turns and sideslips ; stalling tests, including a determination of CLmax ; high-speed dive ; harmony and " feel " of the controls.

An investigation of the fighting qualities of the Me. 109 included dog fights with Hurricanes and Spitfires, measurement of aileron forces and times to bank at speeds up to 400 m.p.h., and an analysis of the turning performance of the aircraft.

Pilots' views on cockpit layout, comfort and view are given in an Appendix to the report.

Conclusions. – (i) Take-off is fairly straightforward. Landing is difficult until the pilot gets used to the aircraft.

Longitudinally the aircraft is too stable for a fighter. There is a large change of directional trim with speed. No rudder trimmer is fitted ; lack of this is severely felt at high speeds, and limits a pilot's ability to turn left when diving.

Fin area and dihedral are adequate. The stall is not violent, and there is no subsequent tendency to spin. CLmax is 1.4, flaps up and 1.9, flaps down. No vibration or " snaking " develop in a high-speed dive.

Aileron snatching occurs as the slots open. All three controls are far too heavy at high speeds. Aerobatics are difficult.

(ii) The Me. 109 is inferior as a fighter to the Hurricane or Spitfire. Its manoeuvrability at high airspeeds is seriously curtailed by the heaviness of the controls, while its high wing loading causes it to stall readily under high normal accelerations and results in a poor turning circle.

At 400 m.p.h. a pilot, exerting all his strength, can only apply 115 aileron, thereby banking 45 deg. in about 4 secs. From the results Kb, for the Me. 109 ailerons was estimated to be - 0.145.

The minimum radius of turn without height loss at 12,000 ft., full throttle, is calculated as 885 ft. on the Me. 109 compared with 696 ft. on the Spitfire...

...4.62. Elevator. – The elevator is an exceptionally good control at low speeds ; it is fairly heavy, and is not over sensitive during the approach glide, while response is excellent. Throughout the speed range the elevator is heavier than that of the Hurricane or Spitfire, but up to 250 m.p.h. this is not objected to, since it is very responsive. Above 250 m.p.h. the elevator becomes definitely too heavy for comfort, and between 300 m.p.h. and 400 m.p.h. is so heavy that maneuvrability in the looping plane is seriously restricted; when diving at 400 m.p.h. a pilot, pulling with all his strength, cannot put on enough g to black himself out if trimmed in the dive.
http://kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials/...ls/Morgan.html

.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by 6S.Manu

Warning on pilot's notes are not a fabrication.

According the numbers posted by Glider (even if they're from an limited investigation on only 121 accidents... a small sample of course) the 38% of those planes were lost for a overstressed airframe issue.

It is not a limited investigation on only 121 accidents... a small sample of course
Please read the posting again. These were all the accidents from the beginning of 1941 until the end of the war.

There were 121 Spitfire crash investigations between 1941 and May 1945 involving serious structural failure:
22 aileron instability #
46 pilot overstressed airframe
20 pilot error in cloud
13 misuse of oxygen system- pilot error #
3 pilot blacked out #
17 engine failure/fire #

Those marked # cannot be blamed on the airframe
Which leaves 66 where the airframe was a factor out of 23,000+ built during the war and millions of flights
Of those 66 a number would have been when the aircraft were in training units number unknown. I am confident that you would be hard pushed to find a lower accident rate of any front line fighter of any Air Force

The number of 121 matches the losses in Morgan and Shacklady recognised book on the subject so we have two different sources. Also note that the author worked in the accident branch which is independent form the RAF

If you wish to state that I have incorrect figures you had better support that comment.

Let's do it in a mature way... in this thread there are to many childish reactions and it's clear that all is created by the same few posters who keep fighting in every WW2 message board of the web.

I certainly agree that it should be a mature debate, with evidence to support any statement. So I await with some interest your explanation of how you determined that this was a small sample.