| NZtyphoon |
05-08-2012 01:10 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by von Brühl
(Post 421641)
You're arguing with non-engineers...
|
Nope, the problem here is that someone who claims to know something about aviation can also make a blanket claim that the Spitfire was an inherently dangerous aircraft, based on two reports which say nothing of the sort.
What they do say is that it did not reach certain NACA standards which had been introduced in 1941 Reference 1. REQUIREMENTS FOR SATISFACTORY FLYING QUALITIES OF AIRPLANES can be found here
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crumpp
(Post 419623)
It would help if you understood everything that report says instead of select phrases out of context. If you can't do that , it is practically impossible to hold a discussion.
If you read the report, it states the conditions the aircraft exhibited a very harsh stall. One of those conditions would be in a steep bank with gun ports open. Under those conditions, the aircraft would develop a roll instability and resulting spin.
The conditions matter in aerodynamics.
Yes the Spitfire gave very good stall warning. That large buffet zone comes at a price in diminishing turn performance.
Longitudinal Stability has nothing to do with stall characteristics except to determine how fast the pilot can move the wing through its useable angle of attack range.
The NACA rated the Spitfire as having unacceptable longitudinal stability and control in all conditions of flight. It is either neutral or unstable and this was corrected with bob weights in later marks.
That is not a bias, it is just a fact. None of these aircraft were perfect regarding stability and control. Some were worse than others and it is a fact the early mark Spitfires exhibited a dangerous longitudinal instability. It was an infant science when they were developed.
|
Nowhere in any of these reports does it state the Spitfire was dangerous. Strangely enough I actually agree with Kurfurst that it did have a sensitive elevator in certain conditions, but, whatever longitudinal instability it did have was controllable, and most pilots learned to handle it, including wet-behind-the-ears trainees transitioning from the Harvard, which could bite if pushed the wrong way.
All fighters are supposed to have a certain amount of controllable instability, otherwise they would not be able to manoeuvre effectively. Remember the BE2? This was an aircraft which was designed to be stable about all axes and it failed miserably as a fighter, and it was all too easy to shoot down because of that built in stability, although it made a great observation platform which was its original purpose. On the opposite pole there was the Camel which was dangerous to its pilots, although still effective when handled properly. |
