The records are posted above....

You guys understand this is quantifiable and not opinion?

I guess I will run some calcs for you all so you can get a better idea of the effect.

And?........

The graphs show a slight instability, if you cant cope with that level of divergence in 3 minutes then my guess is you'd either be paralysed or in a coma.

There are speed changes of about 70mph in less than 15 second documented, if that doesn't take the pilots attention away from other things i don't know what would.
Of course a pilot can manage to control this instability, but he has to work just to keep his ride in a controlled flight, add other factors as gusts, attacking 109's or else and the workload might become too large.

a cessna 152 will go from 70 to 0 in less than 15 seconds......the point is you have to wait a few minutes before those fluctuations get to that level, within the 1st minute nothing on those graphs looks wildly out of control.

Crummp I think you shld stop answering to them. It goes nowhere. Either this thread shld be locked now if you have finished exposing your point or you might switch to the next step in your argumentation.

Don't take me wrong, I found your point really interesting as many other does.

Part of the problem is that Crumpp doesn't awnser the questions, he quotes the papers which is fair enough but doesn't support it with pilots comments. He said the test pilot reports support his. So let him show any test pilot who said it was difficult or dangerous or uncomfortable to fly, or any test establishment. No one is denying that it didn't have perfect stability but then again whats perfect.

The paper that was posted should be read from beginning to end, after all the man who wrote it had 58 years practical hands on experience. Another important section is as follows:-

I published reports on the Hawker Hurricane (April 1942) (ref. 4.5) followed shortly by one on the Spitfire. The data obtained in these tests served to confirm most of the requirements previously proposed by Gilruth. Other reports followed comparing these results with published data on the German fighter Me109 and with U.S. fighter airplanes. During the war, pilots' lives depended on small differences in performance between the first-line fighters, and continual detailed improvements were made in these fighters. Several research studies were made on improvements, usually on control systems, and close contact was kept with the manufacturers through conferences and preliminary reports.

The tests on the high-speed fighters confirmed the findings of Gilruth that though all the airplanes exhibited instability in the spiral and phugoid modes of motion, these [26] modes did not concern the pilot because his normal control actions prevented the modes from developing to a point that they were noticeable. That is, the airplanes were spirally unstable, but the rate of divergence was small enough that it was not discernible to the pilots. Also, the long-period longitudinal mode might have been a slow divergence or a poorly damped or unstable phugoid oscillation, but the divergence was so slow or the oscillation had such a long period that it was not noticeable in normal flight. The short-period lateral oscillatory mode, the Dutch roll, was noticeable but adequately damped and the short-period longitudinal mode was so well damped that it could not be detected by the pilots. In general, these results applied to most airplanes of this period and explain why successful airplanes could be built without the need to consider theoretical predictions of dynamic stability. On the other hand, Gilruth had found that many of the quantities that could be determined without the need for complex theories, such as control deflections and control forces required in straight flight and maneuvers, trim changes due to power and flap setting, limits of rolling moment due to sideslip, and adequacy of the control effectiveness in maneuvers, were extremely important to the pilot. The tests on the fighter airplanes showed that the longitudinal control force gradient in maneuvers, known as the force per g, was a very important quantity, whereas the control force and position variation with speed in straight flight was of less importance and mainly influenced pilot fatigue on long flights. These airplanes were found to be quite satisfactory in most respects, though the aileron effectiveness at high speeds was low because of the large control force required to deflect the ailerons, which was an adverse characteristic in air combat. The detailed improvements mentioned previously were mainly directed at this aileron effectiveness problem.

Or to put it another way. The imperfections were small enough to be either not noticed or easily dealt with.

I agree. There are no more measureable or definable characteristics to discuss. The only counterpoints are now based on emotion and feelings.

All generality that is not dealing with the Spitfire. The NACA results are published, measured, and available for all to see.

I think the thread has run its course.

Yes, it ran it's course a while ago....anyway looking forward to the 109 debate, is is coming soon?

For a MK V

The question is whether the increase in workload caused by the Spitfire's longitudinal stability actually amounted to very much at all. Crumpp has been unable to show that it did and the lack of pilot accounts that even mention longitudinal stability suggests that there was no great problem, even for low-hours pilots. I suspect this is partly because the frequency of the pitch oscillations resulting from the instability was quite low. It's hard to see where this discussion can go given these facts.

Further, I really can't see how pitch sensitivity or instability could in any case be modelled in a flight sim where players use short, spring-centred joysticks with response curves. The situation is made worse in CoD because there is no turbulence or weather in the game (or at least I can't recall any from when I had it installed, but that was many months ago).

I think you forgot this part

I published reports on the Hawker Hurricane (April 1942) (ref. 4.5) followed shortly by one on the Spitfire. The data obtained in these tests served to confirm most of the requirements previously proposed by Gilruth. Other reports followed comparing these results with published data on the German fighter Me109 and with U.S. fighter airplanes. During the war, pilots' lives depended on small differences in performance between the first-line fighters, and continual detailed improvements were made in these fighters. Several research studies were made on improvements, usually on control systems, and close contact was kept with the manufacturers through conferences and preliminary reports.

I think you also forgot this part posted earlier

FIGURE 4.5. Supermarine Spitfire airplane. A high-performance fighter noted for its role in the Battle of Britain and throughout WW II, the Spitfire had desirably light elevator control forces in maneuvers and near neutral longitudinal stability. Its greatest deficiency from the combat standpoint was heavy aileron forces and sluggish roll response at high speeds.

Crumpp
Dyou remember saying this

well the person who wrote the paper starts it with

My career to the present has covered 58 years, all at Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia. At the start of my work, the center was called the Langley Memorial Aeronautical Laboratory of the NACA (National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics).

So we can take it that you will read and accept the paper, as it is written by someone who has vast experience in this field, in a place you acknowledge as being (in your words) the NACA was the worlds leading organization.

You also said this

So why can you cannot find any examples of Test Pilots who say that it was difficult to fly? Its a fair question

Yes you can read the NACA report and the results are measured.

You seemed to include a bit too much text so I edited your quote to what it should have been.

For a Mk V..

What, no "standards", just a basis? Developed DURING World War 2 because the pace of aeronautical development was such that it was impossible to develop a fixed set of standards -

I am sorry to disgree with you but the counterpoints, are requests for the Test Pilot reports that you said you had, to support statements, that you made.

Your inability to do so speaks volumes

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/k5054.html

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/k9787-fuel.html

I hate saying this Crumpp but when are you going to read the evidence you put forward?

K5054 is the prototype and the report did say what you said it did for the movement of the elevators.

K9787 is the very first aircraft delivered for the RAF and in this report to do wth the elevators it says:-
The gearing of the elevator control and elevator trimmers which were considered too high in the prototype are satisfactory in this aeroplane.

ie Elevators fixed for production aircraft

While you are at it can I have your test pilot reports that support your statement or is this it?

There is also still no evidence in form of provable data that the data presented by crumpp is not correct.

Interesting that the Pilot's Notes for the Typhoon I note:
Tempest V Pilot's Notes:

There won't be one as the 109 was perfection personified as it is German.

Yep and notice the Typhoon Operating Notes lack the warnings of the Early Mark Spitfire notes.

1. No bracing in turns required

2. Lack of warnings about overloading the airframe

IIRC, the Typhoon's issues did not stem from stability and control design but low velocity flutter in the tail.

It was reported in a couple of flights as longitudinal stability issues but not measured.

It turned out to be a q-limit issue. I think early Typhoon's even had a few structural failures because of it.

Wrong, once again - the tests observe that the Typhoon had fore and aft instability (page 2 para 5), no mention of your "low velocity tail flutter" - as it was the Typhoon's operational history showed that it did make a good GA aircraft. The Tempest, which had no sign of "low velocity tail flutter" also exhibited the same characteristics, contradicting your statement:

The "instability" was low velocity flutter and was not caught until the end of the war.

http://www.airvectors.net/avcfury.html

The RAE did not have a standard for stability and control.

ONCE again, there is nothing else in the Operating Notes in either the Typhoon or the Tempest that pertain to any kind of longitudinal stability issue. Had their been an issue, it would reflect in the cautions.

This is in sharp contrast to the early Mark Spitfires whose Operating Notes are filled with warnings of symptoms that are the result of longitudinal stability.

Crumpp,

I keep hoping you will try and answer Glider's question. If the Spit had such objectional handling characteristics, why is there such a huge body of pilot's reports stating otherwise?

Your position seems to be to me that all such reports don't warrant any thought or comment as they do not represent hard data. I disagree, and don't seem to be alone on this. I don't see how you can convince many others including myself unless you try to come up with some explanation and try to address the discrepancy. Don't you have an opinion?

If you were a young pioneering stability control engineer in 1940, what would YOUR approach be? Judging from this thread, you would collect hard data with precision and evolve intuitively appropriate standards. Then you would ignore all test pilot's feedback of whether or not your proposed changes were desirable. After all, they are not control and stability engineers and cannot understand how their combat aircraft should operate. I don't think you would be playing much of a role in the future of aviation after that.

camber

On one side we have the views of the German, American and British test facilities, as well as the pilots who flew them that the SPitfire is easy to fly. Nowhere in any of these does it say that is was difficult or uncomfortable to fly.

Everyone agrees that there was a slight instability but either it wasn't noticable or it was easily dealt with.

On the other side we have Crumpp's view that because there is a slight instability that it was difficult/uncomfortable to fly. He also said that he had the reports from the test establishments and test pilots to support that view.

He has been asked many times to supply these reports from the establishments/pilots which he has failed to do. When he does supply something it turns out that the first is on the prototype and the second confirms that the issue on the prototype has been solved in the first production aircraft. So far there is nothing else submitted.

Its worth remembering that no one forced him to say that he had this supporting evidence, it was Crumpps statement.

I am afraid that I am starting to believe one of three options:-

a) He never had the supporting evidence and tried to bluff his way out of a problem
b) He does have the reports and they don't say what he wants them to say, so he isn't posting them
c) He has the reports, they say what he want but for some reason he will not submit them

Of the three options C is looking more and more unlikely. I truly hope that I am wrong and that he does have support as A and B are not good options

The Typhoon's tail problems had nothing to do with the longitudinal instability described in the Pilot's Notes. The Tempest did not suffer from "low velocity tail flutter" yet also displayed slight longitudinal instability.

And, BTW the website is completely wrong - the rudder balances, which were at the root of the tail problems, were modified in 1943 - there was no problem with the elevator balances. From early 1944 new production Typhoons, and some earlier ones, adopted Hawker Tempest horizontal tailplanes and elevators which had a larger area - with the small tailplanes and a full weapons load of either 8 RP-3s or 1,000 lb bombs the longitudinal stability deteriorated.

Your comment was the Hurricane, Typhoon and Tempest had near perfect longitudinal stability - no comment about a "longitudinal stability issue." Fact is you were wrong, once again - both aircraft were slightly unstable longitudinally.

If the RAE had no standards for stability and control it meant they were unable to comment on the stability and control of aircraft they tested - read the 1938 report carefully, it is most illuminating.

The Spitfire PNs describe control and g-limits in rough air and caution pilots against making high-speed manœuvres in such conditions, something also covered in Pilot's Notes General.

The thing that made the Spitfire instability special was the very light elevator plus the very short stick travel for large reactions, the Hawker designs were so normal in this aspect, that it isn't even mentioned.

I think for a unbiased reader it shows very clear, that in this thread everything possible is used to indirectly attack the OP.

I shure hope for the same unbiased support for the other planes that hopefully will be discussed.

I know...this is just another one of those pesky reports by that class of people who know nothing of the subjet i.e. a pilot, but at least this one doesn't have 60 years of faded memory and biassed oppinion (he also flies a 109)

http://www.vintagewings.ca/VintageNe...Rob-Erdos.aspx

Nothing to do with attacking the OP, everything to do with backing up the opposed oppinions, what this proves is that nobody who disagrees with the OP is doing it for simple emotional reasons, there are plenty of sources of information to back it up, it's up to the OP to prove without doubt his claims, every claim he has made has had a very valid counter argument, one could argue that someone dedicating so much attention to claims such as the OP's is probably the one doing it for emotional reasons.

Very much so.

I really enjoyed reading the attached documents and opinions in this thread, thank you very much for that.

Taildraggernut cheers for the Rob Erdos article, great reading.

The problem is, that crumpp doesn't present claims, he presents documented facts!

The claims are coming from those, who are unwilling to accept those facts.

To recapitulate those facts, as i understood them, in concentrated form:

1. The early Spitfire marks had a inherent longitudal instability which led to the manufacturer-fix with bob-weights.

2. The stick forces for the elevator were extraordinarily small in the Spitfire.

3. The stick travel was extrordinarily small for large reactions.

It really doesn't matter how good the pilots then were able to cope with those circumstances, it should be reflected in game that the plane doesn't fly itself, but has to be flown, and that with precise, small inputs for the elevator.

Also the tests shown by crumpp say that if one doesn't ride the buffet in a turn, but gets into the buffet, the turn performance is reduced drastically.

It is up to the fm programmer to make it possible to feel the difference in game.

Every aircraft has its quirks, and i think we want them all represented in this game.

No, he presents documents and interprets them to an extreme, with Crumpp this apparent instability is 'total' and should render the Spitfire dangerous to fly, simply not true.

Funny how despite a similar weight of documented evidence is labeled aas 'claims' when on the other side.

in the MkV which had a different engine, all up weight etc.....oh and was about to go into service with the US air force....who apparently heard it was a bit 'unstable'

Yes, as my link to the NACA report showed 'desirably light'

as a real life pilot I can say that sounds like a perfect situation, who wouldn't like a responsive ride?

I must be using a different game, it certainly isn't a hands off aircraft in game, but I sure would like some more of that responsiveness.

Which is quite true of any aircraft, luckyly the Spitfire was so responsive that a pilot barely needed any effort to take the aircraft out of the buffet.

Yes, I agree, I am really looking forward to the promised 109 topic.

I still have to find crumpps claim that the Spitfire is dangerous to fly, failed so far.

Well, none of this evidence said different from crumpps documents

Yes, the MK Va with the same flying characteristics as the Mk I / II as the airframe is identical apart from small changes.

I haven't found your link, but i found that in the NACA report:

In turns with speeds high enough to prevent reaching
maximum lift coefficient because of the excessive accelerations
involved, the small static longitudinal stability
of the Spitfire caused undue sensitivity of the normal
acceleration to small movements of the stick. As shown
by the time histories of high-speed turns (figs. 15 to 18),
it was necessary for the pilot to pull back the stick and
then ease it forward almost to its original position in
order to enter a turn rapidly without overshooting the desired
normal acceleration. Although this procedure appears
to come naturally to a skillful pilot, flight records
from other airplanes show, that a turn may be entered rapidly
and the desired normal acceleration may be held constant
by a single rearward motion of the stick, provided
the static stability of an airplane is sufficiently large.
By careful flying, the pilot was able to make smooth turns
at high speed, as shown by figures 17 and 18. Ordinarily,
however, small movements of the stick caused appreciable
variations in the normal acceleration, as shown in figures
15 and 20.

Now, that is pure blandishing.


Yes, more in the elevators, much less in the ailerons.


As it barely didn't need any effort to get into the buffet if not careful flown.

Me also.

One only has to look at the bigger picture the chap is painting to realise it, by carefull examination you will see he is suggesting 'extreme care' must be taken to fly it, the penalties for not doing so range from complete loss of control to airframe failure, so even though the specific words were not used the ultimate impression Crumpp is giving is of a 'dangerous' aircraft.

and thats the craziest part, it's only Crumpps own interpretation of those documents that paint such a dire picture, the most noteable instance has been the graphs showing the various stability tests, all of which show an aircraft with a very gentle divergent amplitude which is in technical terms 'unstable' but not to any degree as to be of concern, so Crumpp's own evidence works against him.

the same airframe with a different engine and all up weight, given that there were apparent differences between the MkI and MkII how can it be so?

Seek and ye shall find....

http://history.nasa.gov/monograph12/ch4.htm

I fail to see where I am flattering you?

Yes, I can go with that

Lucky all those chaps with 10 hours on type and 0 combat experience were very careful :rolleyes:

I have a feeling we are in for a long wait

I think it is worth re-posting the words of an aeronautical engineer who spent a lifetime practicing his profession over one who hasn't:

FIGURE 4.5. Supermarine Spitfire airplane. A high-performance fighter noted for its role in the Battle of Britain and throughout WW II, the Spitfire had desirably light elevator control forces in maneuvers and near neutral longitudinal stability. Its greatest deficiency from the combat standpoint was heavy aileron forces and sluggish roll response at high speeds.

http://history.nasa.gov/monograph12/ch4.htm

@ taildraggernut

ok, you've wrote at first NACA document, but you meant a Nasa-document about the Naca-document.
And you didn't flatter me, i meant sugarcoating, english is not my first language.
All those chaps with 10 h were those who did fly so carefully that they were outturned by 109's, maybe.

@ Al Schlageter
Of course light elevators ARE desirable, it's the combination with short stick travel which may cause problems for the less experienced.

Does it matter much? does the fact it is a NASA document about a NACA document invalidate it? is it impossible to ascertain what I was refering to? I don't quite follow the need for that correction.

Sorry but english is my first and only language, I simply assumed you used such an uncommon word because you knew what it meant, I had no warning that you may not have understood the words you are using.

so none of the chaps survived an engagement with a 109? despite the fact....sorry anecdotal fact.....that new guys were told to turn as hard as they could in order to evade the 109?

with regards to short stick travel this is apparently another desireable quality, from another part of the same article, interstingly you will se that research was put into trying to make control forces 'light', now apparently this is what makes the Spitfire 'tricky', but what it actually did was compensate for the slight instability and made it more controlable.

To get a feel for how fragile the SPitfire was the following is a posting I found which breaks the losses bytype.

remembering that 20,000+ Spts were built during WW2 the numbers are pretty low

thought I remembered reading an interview on this subject many years ago- and finally found it in a yellowed copy of Alfred Price's 'Spifire At War' (published 1974). It's germane to this discussion (as my teacher used to say) because the person being interviewed is none other than Mr Eric Newton who spent the war with the Air Accident Investigation Branch. He was still employed by them as an investigator in 1974- the time of the interview- so presumably still had the facts at his fingertips. This body was, and is, independent of the RAF.

Mr Newton was called in to investigate Spitfire crashes which could not be immediately attributed to pilot error (the same crashes which are detailed in Morgan and Shacklady). He says:

"Out of a total of 121 serious or major accidents to Spifires reported to us between the begining of 1941 and the end of the war, 68 involved structural failure in the air. Initially the most common reason for such failures, with 22 instances in 1941 and 1942, was aileron instability. The symptoms were not at all clear cut: the aircraft were usually diving at high speed when they simply fell to pieces. Only after one of the pilots had survived this traumatic experience and parachuted successfully were we able to find the cause. During his dive he saw both of his ailerons suddenly flip up, producing an extremely violent pitch- up which caused the wing to fail and the aircraft to break up. In collaboration with RAE we did a lot of tests and found that aileron up- float was made possible by stretch in the control cables; in those days tensioning was a hit or miss affair with no compensation for temperature. On our recommendation the RAF introduced a tensometer which ensured accurate tensioning of the controls; this, and the simultaneous introduction of metal surfaced ailerons ('42/'43), cured almost all the cases of aileron instability in the Spitfire.

The next most serious cause of structural failure in the Spitfire was pilots overstressing the airframe. She was extremely responsive on the controls and one must remember that in those days there was no accelerometer to tell the pilot how close he was to the limit. So it was not difficult to exceed the aircraft's 10G ultimate stress factor (what was the 109's?- Berkshire) during combat or when pulling out from a high speed dive; during the war we were able to put down 46 major accidents to this cause, though undoubtedly there were many other occasions when it happened and we did not see the wreckage. Incidentally, if there was a structural failure in the Spitfire it was almost inevitably the wing that went; the fuselage was far less likely to fail first (the same for most low wing monoplane fighters?-except the Typhoon?- Berkshire).

I once asked a very senior RAF officer why the accelerometer- technically a simple instrument- was not introduced during the war. He replied that he was sure it would have an adverse effect on the fighting spirit of the pilots (same was said re the parachute in WW1!- Berkshire).

Whether that would have been so I cannot say. But I do know that when they finally introduced the accelerometer into service in the Hunter in 1954, and began educating the pilots on structural limitations and the dangers of overstressing, accidents to this cause virtually ceased.

After structural failure the next largest category of accidents proved on investigation to have followed loss of control by the pilot (36 cases). Of these 20 occured in cloud and could be put down to pilot error; one must remember that in the rush to get pilots operational instrument training was not up to peacetime standards. A further 13 accidents were shown to have been caused by oxygen starvation; the oxygen system had been used incorrectly with the result that the pilot had passed out and the aircraft had crashed. As a result of our investigations the system was modified to make it easier to operate.

The remaining 3 accidents in the loss of control category were initiated by the pilot pulling excessive G and blacking himself out.

Engine failures and fires contributed a further 17 accidents, and the remainder could be put down under the 'miscellaneous' heading (long story here about fuel leaks and explosions on the ground- Berkshire)

As I have mentioned we investigated a total of 121 Spitfire accidents during the war. The causes did not always fit simply into neat categories mentioned above. For example, a pilot might lose control in cloud and his aircraft then broke up in the ensuing dive due to aileron instability- in that case the accident would have been listed under two categories. There were one or two accidents caused by the light- weight plastic bucket seats fitted to some batches of Spitfires. The trouble was they were not strong enough and if there was a heavy pilot who pulled a bit of G they tended to collapse- on to the elevator control runs which ran underneath. We soon had that type of seat replaced.

In the nature of my work I tend to concentrate on an aircraft's failings and ignore its good points; but how safe was the Spitfire? I think the figures speak for themselves; a total of more than 22,000 were built, and we were called in on only 130 occasions- and in not all of those was the Spitfire at fault. If one considers that she was not a simple trainer built for ease of handling, there can be no doubt that the Spifire was a remarkably safe little aircraft."

To summarise:
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

The doc is quite interesting and sum-up pretty well what we know abt the plane but it ends in horrendous and hair rising conclusion.

It shld say that out of 133 accidents investigated 126 were from plane malfunction. And what does it says : out of 20000+ units only 126 crashed from plane malfunction !!!

This guy shld hve worked for insurance companies.

@ taildraggernut

do you earnestly propose that having only a three quarter inch useable stick travel out of about 20 inches possible stick travel is desireable?????

Just to remember that three quarters of a inch stick travel is needed to pull the spit in a stall at cruise speed and above.

Eventally add bumpy air and you'll find a lot of unwanted pilot induced oscillations!

how did they ever manage to fly in formation if the aircraft needed to be wrestled with so much? don't tell me...all the footage we ever see of spitfires flying was done on smooth days?.......they were flying reeeealy sloooowly?

Seriously the desparation is really showing now, I can't believe this isn't getting embarrassing for you chaps.

The P-39 has less stick travel and a lighter elevator and was still accepted into service.

Did the Spitfire I also show static longitudinal instability when it was equipped with a different propeller?

That does not even scratch the surface on the number of pilots who damaged the aircraft but managed to make it home.

http://members.madasafish.com/~d_hod...wker-Vspit.htm

and thats a bad thing?

Can we get at least one thing sorted here, is annecdotal evidence valid or not?

No, because the damage to the engine by using more than 400 hp was much more troublesome ;)

incredible isn't it? and apparently its us that wear the pointy tin foil hats.....

Because it did have acceptable characteristics overall.

The P39 exhibited neutral stability at its most rearward CG. The stick travel was 1 inch from cruise to CL max at 1.8 pounds per G.

However, the P39 required 12.5 degrees of elevator travel to reach the stall point AND its acceleration changed in proportion to elevator angle appropriately. There were no wild fluctuations in acceleration and the pilot is able to precisely meet and hold a given acceleration.

If you look at the abrupt pull out curves, the P39 met all the requirements of the NACA standard.

It was not divergent, unlike the Spitfire.

Yet it was the P-39 that had dangerous spin qualities, and the spitfire didn't.

There is no relation.

I edited my post:

"Because it did have unacceptable characteristics overall."

Huge typo, LOL.

The P39 met all the requirements and was acceptable. It is completely off topic and we can cover the P39 when it becomes available.

Both aircraft are placarded against intentional spinning due to dangerous spin characteristics.

Again off topic

Wrong, intentional spinning was discouraged regardless of aircraft type, in the pilots manuals it explains clearly that the Spitfire was benign in the spin, it's just the RAF saw no need for it intentionally, there are 'NO' documented negative spinning qualities of the Spitfire, the P-39 however it was game over in a spin.

it is obvious by now that any qualities associated with the Spitfire are unaceptable to Crumpp.

:rolleyes:

http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/9480/spinning2p.jpg

OFF TOPIC

[QUOTE=Crumpp;447464]:rolleyes:
QUOTE]

Now read the rest of the notes and tell me where it says prohibited because it's a dangerous quality........it doesn't, it just tells you to use standard recovery techniques, not bail out because it's game over.

now go and read almost any other RAF pilots notes on any aircraft and you will see intentional spinning is 'prohibited' again not because the aircraft themselves are dangerous, it is simply because the maneuver is not regarded as necessary and the risks in spinning are universal.

:rolleyes:

p.s. how are the handling qualities of the Spitfire off topic?

No. Again.

For example Basic pilot syllabus include spins. The plane used for this where not prohibited for spinning.

You hve also excellent pilot's note video on Youtube regarding P47, 38 etc.. You'll see that spin was not prohibited on those type. I am sure someone will point a similar (real :evil:) vid for an RAF plane

well, why spin the spitfire if they already got trained to do it in a tiger moth that doesn't loose 2,000 feet minimum? hence why they didn't like to spin their expensive new and oh so desparately needed Spitfires, what the Americans had as regulations is the Americans business......nothing to do with the Spitfire....back on topic please.:rolleyes:

I think i know who is running out of straws now.

At least one of you is beginning to realise it.

AP129 encourages spin training and has a whole chapter devoted to it. Aircraft are placarded against spinning because the specific design had dangerous characteristics.

End of story.

They also learned to spin in the Harvard. An aircraft known for its vicious stall characteristics, and which needed about 2-3000ft to recover, if memory serves.

in your oppinion, spin training is encouraged in 'training' aircraft, not the newest front line types which might be more usefully used in actual combat, the spitfire was not dangerous to spin....end of story:rolleyes:

lol! ;)

Wrong again. The pilots notes are clear that if you get into a spin the Spitfire will recover normally. You didn't read the words directly after the ones you quoted. Check your own posting 358

Re the P47 practice spins of more than 1/2 turn are banned according to the pilots notes

:rolleyes:

Which part?

About AP129?? No

Or the Spitfire placarded against spinning? PROHIBITED is the word they use...IIRC.

"Normally" does not means that the Spit will recover by itself but that you have to apply normal actions to get out of the spin (note tht there are some planes that recover by them-self).

Your reading is little biased when the line you extracts are only a couple of lines after the one saying that the spin was forbidden.

Limited to 1/2 turn in the 47 means that after half a turn you shld initiate actions to stop the spin and recover. It does not means that you 'd die once the plane past that point. In that case, if the odds are high enough, the Spin IS FORBIDDEN.

Stable spin situation have often a link with an aft CG location. It does not means that you'd die each time you'll get in a spin but more that the time to recover would be too great to be considered a safe practice during training or in a combat situation or might damage the structure.

Anyway, there is nothing to read btw the lines or makes interpretations. Those pilot's notes are written by those that know all about flying a military plane in combat situation.

So, EO Glider, with all my respect, stick by the book or use your imagination to found new ways of pealing the potatoes...

Dismiss !

;)

PS: I hope the joke passed the barrier language. Sgt Tomcat stand ready to eat his hat with some Bearnaise sauce in case it failed

Yes, my memory was correct. PROHIBITED is the right word.

http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/9480/spinning2p.jpg

I'm sure someone will be along soon enough to say that when it's the Spitfire we're talking about; the pilot instructions don't count because "it was wartime".

Most common cause of unrecoverable spins....

Gee, the Spitfire is placarded against spins....

What a coincidence Supermarine narrowed the aft CG limits without the installation of bob-weights!!

Must be a conspiracy to castrate English manhood!

;)

Anybody take a guess as to why the Spitfire nose goes down from elevator input when recovery begins, and then for one full turn, goes down farther holding input......and then it recovers??

Enlighten me...

interesting account.....

http://www.609wrsquadron.co.uk/Archi...Zurakowski.pdf

Oh but it's another one of those bloody pilots telling stories again....what do they know..:rolleyes:

Pilot's Notes General AP2095

4. Manœvres not Permitted

(i)Intentional spinning of operational aircraft

(iv)The reasons underlying these prohibitions are partly considerations of strength, partly of control. Aircraft are designed to fulfil their operational role and not to perform manœvres of no operational value.

That 609 Sqn pilot...naughty! Tsssk tssk! :rolleyes:

However pilots were trained to spin in order to learn how to stay calm and recover the aircraft - during WW1 pilots who got into a spin often didn't know how to recover; until a training regime was put in place spinning into the ground was a common cause of death.

Bingo!

There were all sorts of 'rules' put to paper..

For example

Performing a victory roll over the air field..

Prohibited to be sure!

For more reason than one!

But does that mean the plane was unable to and/or unsafe while preforming a 'roll' during combat?

Nope!

"One might wonder why anyone would use this manoeuvre. There were situations, especially in the Battle of Britain, where we were so outnumbered that the Spitfire had no chance. The maneuverability of the Spitfire was so superior to the Me 109 that in a dogfight I considered two or even three Me 109s equal opponents."

Crumpp has claimed in the past that the RAF was not outnumbered in the air battles over south-east England.

:rolleyes:

Oh Dear a conundrum .... Spinning Spit II ok if authorised by CO or OTU CFI :)

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e2...horization.jpg

What is the conundrum???

Where is the rest of it, btw?

So we have two references one says Spinning is "Prohibited" presented by Crummp (highlighted with red box to support his Spitfire stability impediment argument), and here another reference saying Spinning is Ok with authorisation from a pilot's CO or CFI in an OTU. i.e. in this reference its NOT prohibited.

What do you mean where is the rest of it ? .... its sitting on my desk as a written publication

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e2...4/spit2mnl.jpg

If you want the entire page from which the snippet was taken from here you are:

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e2...2Spin_Auth.jpg

Found an interesting quote today that seemed very relevant to this thread:

I've read somewhere that there was another limitation to spin recovery: the pilot has to recover the plane not after 2 turns... I'm going to search for the doc.

Anyway about spinning I've found something interesting: it's not a Spit MkI, but a Spit MkVc... still I think the characteristics were similar to the previous versions.

http://www.darwinspitfires.com/artic...-the-zero.html

Some interesting quotes:

These quotes (and many others) still reinforce my thought about the famous prestall warning in combat: it was useful in smooth turns, but in the tightest ones it could not be adverted because the oversensitivity of the elevators: it's the only explanation for RAF pilots been afraid to turn tightly. The pilot needs to be very careful on the stick, to act with precise movements who usually are not available during a situation of danger while, of course, are not a problem if the RAF pilot is actually engaging an unaware enemy.

Sadly we don't know the type of engagement tested during those famous British "109 vs Spitfire" dogfights...


And my favourite parts, even if OT:

"Darwin Spitfires" is an exceptionally good (though very expensive) book.

On the Spinning side of things Pilots notes (I have) show spinning was permitted on the MKII,V,IX,VIII,XI,XVI,XIV,XIX. Yet to check the other marks.

Dear IvanK,

Is that a reprint ? Because the 1565B does not have this paragraph :
see here (watch out p9 and 10 are in wrong order):

http://www.avialogs.com/list/item/34...in-xii-engines


@Manu : I would hve a look at that book. Thx.

EDIT: is that this one ?

I have not that book, but looking at the website it seems the right one.

http://www.darwinspitfires.com/

Off topic I know but I would add to the recommendations for "Darwin Spitfires" The author is actually local to me, I tried to get in touch but no luck :(

It has quite in-depth analysis of tactics and technical matters. The Australian Spit Vc had two huge technical problems related to the high altitude they fought. Those guys could almost rely on their prop CSUs failing in dives, leading to 4000rpm and rapid engine failure. Their cannons almost never worked, as the heat piping network basically fell apart. They were at a huge distance from the Supermarine supply line, but I think the RAAF staff let down the frontline by not addressing these problems effectively.

But initial pilot attitudes were a problem as well. Disregarding the American warnings, they didn't realise they were now the Messerchmitts, and the Zeros were the Spitfires. Once those lessons were learned, the Spits were effective.

The real RAAF star of the Pacific was the Beaufighter..another recommendation:
http://www.booksforever.com.au/catal...ing_Death.html

camber

P.S Cmon IvanK, $35 isnt too bad for a good book. You'll just have to cut back on beer :)

Thanks for the info on the book Ivank - very interesting.

Flying and fighting at 30,000 feet in a tropical environment in a heavily loaded Spitfire VC (trop) was very different to flying and fighting at 10-20,000 feet over SE England in a more lightly loaded Spitfire I or II.

Tomcat VIP Yes thats the the book... its truly excellent.

Camber you got it for a steal at $35 !

The Spit IIA notes I have are from the Crecy "Pilots notes series". The copy I have is Revised December 1941 issued with A/L.No 19/F incorporated and further amended to A/L 22H,AL 23J and 25K.

http://www.crecy.co.uk/product_info.php?products_id=172

The one on the site you link to is not amended by the look of it.

It's rather amusing how now that the OP's initial criticisms of the Spit have been crushed, this whole thread is now descending into criticising the Spit's spinning qualities, now even this theory is being brought into question I wonder what road we will go down next?.....or have we already started the new episode with various internet 'memes' and quotes from favourite books?

The things this thread has really taught us:

the Spitfire was 'slightly' longitudinally unstable, a trait shared with several other types of the era, also we have learned that the Spit was truly a 'maneuverable' aircraft but additionally it had a very key quality of being very controlable, these 2 key attributes are what 'famed' the Spitfire for its delightfullness to fly, which was much more than just an ability to perform aerobatics, it meant the aircraft could be pointed around the sky with confidence and ease, ironic that this thread has been an attack on the Spitfires most redeeming features.
With the real defficiencys that the Spitfire actually had it begs the question why bother starting this thread? a bash at the British aircraft industry for not having 'adopted' stability and control standards? despite the fact the standards that were adopted by other nations were heavily based on the work of British engineers.

Keep in mind that the not amended paragraphs are from a time when there was no Pilot's Notes General, which was first issued in 1941. It's obvious that's the early Pilot's Notes contain much more general guidelines, which were removed in the later edition as they are covered in the general notes.

IIRC the not amended "handling paragraphs" are the basically the same for Spitfire I and II.

The really amusing thing is how you create this conclusions out of thin air.
And how can presenting facts be recognized as a bashing?
But i am wasting my time, as you still are insist that the Spitfire is the perfect plane with no flaws whatsoever.
Be happy in your delusional world, but also be shure its not shared by so many.

:rolleyes:

it seems I share the oppinions of everyone who ever flew the Spitfire.

Crumpp has presented much documentary information and proceeded to misrepresent what it was really saying.

You are indeed wasting your time.

Perhaps...

But edited in June40 and published in July 40, the link to the 1565B that I have posted seems more relevant to me.

Usually operating the plane tend to amend the note book toward more restrictions unless there is a modification in the design.

Thin air indeed......

"to soon or to quickly" - see IVANK post just bellow

Look at page 17 IvanK. That would hve been a point of concern for anyone. In a combat situation, try to imagine yourself trying to understand the meaning of to soon or to quickly when your plane just departed knowing that somewhere around there is a Hun ready to put the pipper on you.

I am not saying that the Spitfire was dangerous to fly, IMOHO and I think that's the real meaning of that thread, the Spitfire was as not as easy to handle as a FBW plane. There is a huge divergence in handling btw what we can read on that plane and was is depicted in IL2.

Many of us have waited years during the old's IL2 days. Now it's enough. Let's end the farce and contribute all to a more representative FM.

Some images taken by me from Original source Docs in the UK National archives. I have complete copies (In Hi Res) of these docs. Nothing to dramatic wrt spinning in these reports. ...as the MKI 2 Pitch prop report says .... " The Behaviour in spins is satisfactory" !!

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e215/zulu64/X1.jpg

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e215/zulu64/X2.jpg

http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e2...I_Spinning.jpg