I agree, the case made is a real hack job.

Presumably the main concern was the Hun that already had their pipper on you that caused tyou to spin.
Concern? it's actually reasonably typical behaviour for most aircraft, thats why you always get the opposite rudder in first in a 'standard' spin recovery.
This is just getting silly now, analysing the finite points of the Spitfire spin qualities, but I guess some of you have gone too far in the debate to back down.

p.s. nicely edited post once you someone posted some great evidence against your original comment.

An account of a deliberate spin, in a Spitfire, during the BoB..

The pilot was later KIA.

http://i822.photobucket.com/albums/z...e/8d26db76.jpg

Good job he was KIA because he did something that was forbidden! Tut tut...

Not only that but he did something 'forbiden' for 20,000ft and had the presence of mind to recover correctly despite thinking he had 6 huns with their 'pippers' on him....

You know TDN, there is also plenty of people with good intentions in that world...

As I said alrdy this thread turned down to paranoia and maniacal
behavior.

Let's get out of that spin

I would argue the original sentiment of this thread has nothing to do with 'good intention'

I haven't got any sense of paranoia here but maniacal behaviour is becoming very evident among the Spit critics who are taking this thread down some very desparate avenues.

Yes, lets get out of the Spin (with correct technique) and push for the much awaited 109 thread, this one has run it's course.

Yes it started on Page 1 with Post #1.

Sure! Spins there used as defensive manouvres: it was a tactic used by many pilots in many different planes...

Anyway it's clearly a defensive manouvre that sometimes saved the life of that pilot leaving your squad with one less unit in combat, resting with the enemy's decision to follow you.

It keep the pilot alive, but don't make you win the battles.

Aren't you missing the point?.......the idea was apparently the Spitfire was dangerous to spin, now if this post isn't clear evidence of the maniacal and bizarre avenues Spit critics are going.....

Serously, whats the difference between an aircraft that is out of combat because it evaded an opponent and an aircraft that is out of combat because it was shot down?.....that's right, the one that got away will fight again, just like the account winny posted.

IIRC the tropical version had a great disadvantage only at medium-low altitude (under 20k ft).

Sure that Vc was heavier (6900 lbs against 6200 lbs), but the Merlin 46 was more powerful than the Merlin XII. The V climbed better at those altitudes.

Of course the stall speed was higher.

For anyone interested in the context of the extract I used.

It was written by John 'Pickle' Pickering an RAF pilot.

All of the accounts in 'Ten fighter boys ' were written during the BoB.

His last entry read : I will now close this line as I have been ordered off again to search for a Hun coming in our direction.

Note - I didn't get him, he ran back home.

The next entry was written by Athol Forbes, a squadron mate.

"Since writing these lines our gallant pickle has, alas! Been killed Whilst flying on active service. Per Ardua Ad Astra".

John Pickering was 20 years old.

I've never stated it was dangerous to spin in it because of the recovery: conversely I keep claiming that it was prone to spin... and spinning in combat is far from a safe manouvre.

It can save you life once, twice... but air combat is also a matter of numbers! It's really possible that another guy died because his wingman spinned down.

I know what you were getting at, I just thought it was somewhat tenuous to have brought it up, the thread is about Spitfire stability not about bad decisions made in combat.

Is being prone to spinning not a control issue?

What about pilots afraid to turn because of the spin?

It is but I believe this thread has conclusively proved the Spitfire was not 'prone' to spin unexpectedly, no more prone to spin than any other aircraft in a high speed stall condition.

Some pilots are just afraid of spinning, not of the Spitfire, note how some conciously chose to spin....what were they afraid of?

Just forget it 6S.Manu, the Spitfire fan club wont accept ANY blemishes on their idol.

running out of arguments?

Then we ended with a different conclusion... small stick travel and low stick force required are enough for me. 3G with less than a inch of stick movement...

Naturally...

We will simply forget the fact the Spitfire 'never' picked up the reputation you are seeking here, there you have it, the Spitfire could simply have not been effective in combat because if it tried to outmaneuver an opponent it went into a spin.....

RL combat was a lot different from what we have in these games. If it was then no Spitfire would be claimed by the Germans, since every pilot could ride it easily to its limit.

In real life there were few pilots able to do that, while most would never try to equal those manouvres made by the most brave and skilled... most of the time your only smooth turn would be made during the engaging manouvre, to put you nose on the unaware enemy's six, an enemy who would not turn tight.

Still we have stalling and spinning Spitfires against the Japaneses and pilots not turning tightly against a captured 109 quite surely not flown at his limits.

Were the formers unable to feel the prewarning shaking? Were the latters afraid of what?

Seems more like the anti-Spitfire/Anti-British fan club can't find any real blemishes.

The anti-Spitfire/Anti-British fan club struck out on the 100 octane fuel and now have struck out on the Spitfire. One more strike out on the Hurricane to come. They are batting 0.0.

Then there is the question why the OP picks the Hurricane and not the Bf109 for his next topic.

Really?.....I suppose you know.

if the Spitfire was anything like the portrayal being attempted by the OP then History would need to be re-written because no Spitfire would ever have claimed a 109.

When the term 'easy to fly' and 'a pilot's dream' were coined about the Spitfire it was not aimed at pilots who just wanted to cruise cross country wearing ray-bans, it was for the pilots with some testosterone (including the ladies) who wanted to point it around the sky and have a blast, an aircraft that is likely to spin out is never going to get that reputation, the fact some spitfires ended up spinning out in combat is 'not' indicative of a propensity to do so, combat is a stressfull enviroment that can force you beyond the limits because your mind is often overloaded with more to worry about than limits in the pilots notes.

Now, please come back with some pilots reports indicating a tendency to spin unexpectedly etc and help me to change my mind.

He stated that it was an excellent fighter, he did not say it was totally uncontrollable.

That's the problem? I can't talk for him (as I disagree that Spitfires were prohibited from spinning) but he only stated it has an issue who usually is not remembered because "it was easy to fly".

See, I'm not an Anti-Spitfire (or worser, Anti-British... pure crap and shame on who states that)... but I can really say that I'm an Anti-"Easy to fly = Tie Fighter" as many here think.

It's probably that many other airplane had similar issues, and there's no wrong in focusing on those. But why many need to be so defensive about this plane? Why can't they separates the RL plane from the Myth?

I know it's not easy if many STILL think that the best plane is the more manouvrable (look at my sig).

Easy to fly... sure it was easy to takeoff/land easy in turning, climbing and diving... nowhere it's written it was easy to push at limits. Or why should be RAF pilots be outturned by a poor 109?

I did already some pages behind: but "the fact some spitfires ended up spinning out in combat is 'not' indicative of a propensity to do so"...

So why should lose time in doing it?
:-)

Just answer me: how can a 109 outturn a Spitfire like it happened in those tests?

He said it was an excellent fighter and the rest of his thread was a big 'BUT it was totally uncontrollable and broke up in spins' and many other variations on an attempt to discredit the Spitfire.

only he and a few merry followers say it had an 'issue', history does not reflect those oppinions, for some reason he clings to a NACA report on the wrong variant as his proof and wants to make it stick to the entire Spitfire family.

Yes I can agree that you are not the Anti British type and I thank you for that rare quality, but I would add that labeling anyone who defends the Spitfire as having a 'tie fighter' agenda is ignorant.

Sadly there is a need to be defensive on this issue because there are an element that seek to fabricate alternate myths and are of the anti british nature, but I'd like to know exactly what the real Myths are about the Spitfire, it's got to be famous for a reason better than 'it was British and we were on the winning side in the war', personally I believe it was famous because it was one of the best fighters, to be in that category it had to have qualities above others, this thread is an attempt to take away any redeeming qualities.

Now youre being ridiculous, most aircraft were easy to fly in that sense, the Hurricane was even easier in that sense, it has to be it's qualities in combat that made it famous, nowhere is it written that it was difficult to push to it's limits.

Not sure what you mean, but the Spitfire was generally better at turning than the 109....not 100% that really depended on who was flying, but certainly for the most part, which includes while in the hands of some of the less skilled RAF pilots.

Really? you think that because those RAAF pilots underestimated the turning capabilities of the Jap planes and ended up in spins because they got caught in turning engagements was proof the Spitfire was prone? almost any aircraft would have spun out if it was turning with a zero.

I don't understand what you mean here?

are there no tests showing the Spitfire out turning the 109?

This is only your spin on crumpp's posts, i haven't read that, or could you please quote what i've missed.

It's hardly surprising now is it.....

I actually totally agree with you 100%, there there, it can happen. In the same way the P47 wasn't dangerous to spin, neither was the Spitfire.

Its probably fair to say that the Pilots notes were on the side of caution

We're losing sight of the "measurable and definable" aspect of things, here.

Not really..

We have measured and defined that having 'adopted' stability and control standards or not, it seems everybody made aircraft with quirks, maybe it's because everybody was using British engineers theories for the basis?

We have defined the desireable qualities of the Spitfires maneuverability and controlability, and I might add i'd like to see more sensitivity in pitch with better rate of turn modelled in game.

We have defined the spinning characteristics of the Spitfire were not alarming and did not result in airframe failure.

We have defined that the RAF had a 'blanket' ban on intentionally spinning operational aircraft for some rather obvious reasons, nothing to do with imminent failure of the aircraft but more to do with preventing hot headed fighter pilots 'mucking about' with expensive and desperately needed combat aircraft, this has no bearing on the use of spinning in combat as an evasion technique, if your choice is get shot down and die or spin which would you chose?

Totally uncontrollable? come one...

Could it reach the airframe limit in turn? Of course, many planes had that problem: above all the ones with oversensitive elevators... look at the doc: Spitfire had oversensitive elevators according to NACA.

This only means that pilots should be aware of that more than the ones flying a plane with heavy stick forces... heavy stick forces were a required at highspeed (of course "high" is not a measure)

It's often been said that one of the greatest virtues of the Spitfire was that the plane's behaviour didn't changed after every modification... IIRC the Griffon Spitfires lose most of those virtues.

Or is it a Myth?

Those who actually think that "easy to fly" mean that pilot could have full control of the plane in every condition, knowing that the Spitfire is an war machine and not a touring plane... those are the ones with an "tie fighter" agenda... I'm not claiming that everyone who defends this plane is one of those.

But you know, in forums is always the same thing: black or white, nuthuggers vs haters., syndrome of sorting people by their current idea.

Any redeeming quality? Come on... don't be so extremist.
It's a NACA document about longitudinal stability and control quality.

These are my opinions about the best Spitfire's qualities
1) the RR Merlin.
2) receptive airframe (modifications didn't changed the behaviour)
3) Hispano cannons

Acrobatic skills and turn rate are not there: not really important in a fighter of the WW2, just see the design of the new fighters... so many elliptical wings...

But for that is famous the most? this last one...

Then of course the planes of the winner side (above all those beautiful like the Spitfire and the P51) are most be remembered as symbol of that win... it's dishonest not to admit it at least partially... but at least the P51 (my favourite plane even if too much wordhipped by the american history) had a real advantage in range. The turn rate is still so overrated by many warbirds' fans.

So, IMO, it was one of the best, not THE best... it has issues as any other plane. Perfection does not exist.

The Hurricane was not so easy to fly with that stick friction... in landing configuration from the 100mhp to 150mhp it was not the nicest plane.
But please... enough with "made it famous"... M.Jackson was famous to be a pedophile, but was he really? Pavarotti was a famous benefactor but in reality he was f*****g tax evader.

Look at the airplane for that it is, and not for that it's been told of.

About the "easy to fly => easily push to the limit" read below.

But it was easy to fly... how can them not be able to outturn a crap plane like a captured 109E.
Those pilot should be really low skilled to not push the plane at his limits, since it was easy.

No. The one about the Norwegian guy pulling up and turning left only to spin and not recover since its engine stopped.
I just ask... why did many pilots spin? Wasn't the prestall warning enought to plan that? Why didn't they adverted it and continued the turn?

"the pilot found himself stuck in an increasingly narrow corner of the flight envelope, until any attempt to pull G would result in an instant high speed stall."

I can speculate that the oversensitive stick control was a reason for that. Those planes were not fully controllable, that's different from totally uncontrollable as no one here stated expect yourself.

"the fact some spitfires ended up spinning out in combat is 'not' indicative of a propensity to do so".
So you don't care about reports... why should I find for them.. I doubt to find a number big enough to be indicative.

:-) <= it should be the little blu one but I don't remember the code.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...g_spitfire.htm

Aerobatics: “This aeroplane is exceptionally good for acrobatics. Owing to its high performance and sensitive elevator control, care must be taken not to impose excessive loads either on the aeroplane or on the pilot and not to induce a high-speed stall. Many aerobatics may be done at much less than full throttle. Cruising rpm should be used, because if reduced below this, detonation may occur if the throttle is opened up to climbing boost for any reason.

Stalling:This aeroplane has sensitive elevators and, if the control column is brought back too rapidly in a manoeuvre such as a loop or steep turn, stalling incidence may be reached and a high-speed stall induced. When this occurs there is a violent shudder and clattering noise throughout the aeroplane, which tends to flick over laterally and, unless the control column is put forward instantly, a rapid roll and spin will result.

You're absolutely right here but I guess but no one in this thread is claiming Spitfire is the best plane in the world. I see lots of defensive activity in here against OPs claims but no praising of the Spitfire.

In game, it is also difficult to fly the Spit on the edge. There are capable pilots and there are not so good pilots and you can tell the difference when you meet them. Same in real life I guess except this is a game. Same goes for any aircraft in the sim so that's fair enough.

As for the issue, yes they have changed something in the FM in the last beta patch as I find the Spitfire is more difficult to stall now (1.07). I prefered the previous version to be honest.

Hurricane is very much off topic here, but:

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

No sorry wrong, it had 'desireably' light controls

No sorry wrong, heavy stick forces were a penalty for high speed and extensive research was put into remedying the problem, an aircraft with heavy controls is more difficult to control.

Hard to say, the Griffon Spits were almost a different aircraft but given the eliptical wing and general planform of the aircraft were unchanged, and it's very much the physical shape of the aircraft that defined alot of its flying qualities, then perhaps it's not a Myth, but a Griffon Spit is not the topic here.

and which conditions do you have evidence for that made the Spitfire particularily difficult? given that NACA said it's biggest shortcoming in combat terms was 'heavy' ailerons at very high speed, so you think the Spitfire was famous for being a 'touring' machine?
at least you realise there is an element of the anti-british/anti-spitfire going on here.....I wonder who it is?

Who said 'THE' best?

The RR merlin was not a unique quality...
Receptive airframe? you have a strange set of rules
Hispano cannons are guns not aircraft, what good is a hispano if it's nailed to a cessna 152?

Aerobatics are useless, aerobatic ability is very usefull, if the aircraft can't cope with aerobatics then it hasn't got a hope in hell of being a fighter....like a PA-28

You make it sound like the Allies have tried to erase all memory of the Germans, if just being the winners was the main influencing factor in aircraft favouriteism then why are there so many LW fans?

are you saying that 'fame' only comes from bad qualities?

Huh?

But the 109 wasn't crap....what medication are you taking?

Because in combat you can end up spinning because you just couldnt' hold on to the edge forever and somebody is trying to kill you or the other way around, nothing to do with propensity to spin, or are you saying the Spitfire was the only aircraft that spun in hard turns?

I guess that is really what you are saying....

So if I found a report of a 109 spinning I could claim the 109 was unduly prone to it?

:rolleyes: ah the punchline for the Lufwhiners.....I mean the unbiassed truthmongers who have nothing but the best interests of historic realism at heart.

Yes, the sensitive elevators were an unusualy rare and desireable quality, it sounds pruden't to give warning for a situation that 'could' arrise

Yes, the sensitive elevators were an unusualy rare and desireable quality, it sounds pruden't to give warning for a situation that 'could' arrise

Brian Lane, on stalling...

http://i822.photobucket.com/albums/z...e/eb1ba1dc.jpg

So he was taught the move at Flight Training School..

Ok what was then? Author surly alive :)

+1

Superbmarine Spitfire : Yes

Remote ctrld WiiFire : NO

;)

:)
Yes, he got away. Basically.. He was followed by 2 109's, twisted and turned, "nearly hitting the water on several occasions" used his boost cut, one of the 109's dived on him from the side, Lane turned into him, fired his remaining ammo, hit the 109 at very close range, the 109 went straight into the sea, the second one wasn't fast enough to catch up with him. He landed safely but badly shaken!

He survived the BoB but never came back from a mission in December '42.. He was last seen giving chase to two Focke-Wulf 190 fighters. Listed as MIA

Unbelievable... It's like talking to a wall... Good job on playing the 3 little monkeys.

TDN: After been called anti-british (good job!), luftwhiner (of course!) and under medication (knowing who's the one here with serious problems of comunication, and I'm not talking about a language issue, as I already witnessed in a thread about the BoB), after asking clear questions who "strangely" you don't understand (the one about "fame" is really a good one) I'm going to ignore you.

Robo: I know nobody claimed that; The statement below was to imply that, as many other planes, it had some issues. I'm sending to you a link by PM. See you after the next patch. ;-)

I know the feeling oddly enough....and from the same discussion.

If you can relieve yourself of the burden of paranoia you might also realise it was not directed at you but more at the general group that I am facing here.

Funny how communication problems are never interpreted as anything positive and given benefit of the doubt, but I'm very sorry if it offended you deeply.

You brought up paedophiles and tax dodgers.....:rolleyes:

OK

Dafuq did I get banned for!!?:shock:

Welcome back bongo. I was afraid you had gotten the big vacation, as another did.
I am still waiting for the reason I got some demerit points (now gone).

Balance? Probably.

I love forum bans, they're like temporary martyrdom.. Except you get reincarnated a week later.. Funny.

This video has a very intersting part at 3:20, listen very carefully to what the late Mark Hanna says, I know MH434 is a Mk9, but that is no less unrelated than a Mk5, but the point is this is how people who have flown any marque speak about the Spitfire.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lgn7o...feature=g-vrec

Yep, it's a Mk IX, and the difficulties of the early marks were reduced to non-problems by i.e. artificially increasing the stick forces with the bob-weights since the Mk V.
Later marks didn't have the extreme low stick forces (elevator) anymore.
They were still 'desirable light', though.

only the Mk5 was ever fitted with a bob weight, the Mk9 was not.

Wow, the instability only existed in the early marks.

Not all Spitfires were Mk I, II, or early Va's.

However ALL Spitfires were fixed with the addition of bob-weights or other design changes to eliminate the instability.

It doesn't actually say must be recovered by 5000feet it says recovery must be initiated by 5000feet. Its minimum altitude guidance to the pilot implying that up to 5000feet might be required for full spin recovery.

Right Ivan....

Did you read the recovery characteristics??

Again, answer the question.

What is the pilot to do if recovery does not begin by 5000 feet?

Crummp read the exact words. "Recovery must be STARTED not lower than 5000 feet" !!!!

Its like in any aeroplane that the pilot has a means of escape, (Ejection seat or parachute). Its a judgement call if out of control there comes a time where the pilot must decide stick with it and attempt a recovery or step over the side.

Did you read the AVIA test reports on spinning behaviour posted earlier ... ?

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

The simple answer is continue with the spin recovery that you have already initiated and you should come out of the spin in the next turn or so. Allowing you sufficient room to pull out.

Robtek and Manu,

Thanks for participating and sorry if you feel like you are being whacked in the face repeatedly by a 1/24 scale Spitfire.

I have an emotional connection to the Spit, I always go and give my one a pat (Mk19) whenever I am back in my home city (Perth, Aus), and marvel at it's very odd rudder trim tab.

Despite that, I agree with most of what you say, as I agree with the core of Crumpp's argument as I see it:

The early marks of Spitfire had specific measured control characteristics, involving slight longitudinal instability, neutral stick stability and light control forces. These should be implemented as well as possible in simulation.

I don't see anyone disagreeing with that actually. I am disappointed that it is tricky to even acheive a high speed stall in current CloD Spitfires.

Crumpps qualitative interpretation on top of that that the Spit stability is a large weakness (reading back through the thread it still seems clear to me but not so much in the original post) is not supportable, unless you can legalistically exclude all opinions by pilots, which are legion. Especially when the NACA standard is admissable, which unlike the stability data it is based on, is an expert but qualitative judgement on top.

That said there are some odd side issues added in by Crumpp, like the assertion that buffet is effectively binary in the sense that either the Spitfire is out of the buffet, or stuck in a hard buffet with a massive turn degredation. This does not seem to fit with the historical record or IvanK's and Glider's flight experience of buffet onset sensing than unloading slightly.

The MkV bobweight attributed as a cure for dangerous instability in MkI and II is not supported by the historical evidence as I see it.

I could certainly believe that accidental spins out of combat turns occurred often in the Spitfire, as they are amply documented. Recovery is clearly straightforward, which should give one caution of using instructions in Pilot's notes as proof that certain actions endanger the Spitfire more than other fighters of the time.

I could certainly believe that Spit instability decreased it's ability as a gun platform, as this is supported by the historical record.

I really don't think that arguing as if the other side have had a special meeting and share all the same arguments is constructive. It's a shame though, the disscussion moderates always disappear (at least not literally, like in a civil war :)), or get mad and become extremists, leaving the latter as the last men standing.

I also wish the mods could have a script that deletes any post that use the eyes rolling icon. And perhaps over a certain% of bold. But not smileys :):)

camber

The problem that we are faced with despite 46 pages of post is how you would implement these "issues" In a game that you can modify control curves etc. Yes the spit should be sensitive in pitch and less sensitive in roll but with adjustable curves how you do it. Also we have joystick that are not even close in length and therefore throw compared to a real life aircraft. We also cannot sense G in game or for those without force feedback any hint of buffet. We can ask for aircraft that perform in speed, turn rate, RoC, etc but how do you simulate control feel? Even in multi-million $ sims that I have flown control feel in the sim is not the same as in the aircraft, and these are aircraft that have artificial feel as part of the control system.

We all want accuracy but how do we achieve it? Quantifiable performance (speed, RoC's etc) is much more important to get right to begin with than control feel. Get aircraft (be they blue or red) first to perform to the numbers (which we don't have at present.) The you can deal with secondary issues.

At the end of the day the spitfire had a good reputation amongst those who flew it in combat. It was not an "ensign eliminator" or a "son of a Bi%^ch second class" it may have had some issues with longitudinal stability, yet was known as an aircraft that was a joy to fly.

I totally agree, not only is it technically questionable how one could do it, but I consider the chance of devs attempting it is nil. I don't mean that as a criticism of the devs. I do think some improvements could be made within the limitations of different control gear, response curves etc.

So it seemed to me that the thread was more a historical discussion of Spitfire handling, which has thrown up a range of interesting historical sources. Somewhere along the lines of, how would the perfect sim model stability?

camber

No matter how you set up your curves, you'd still need to reduce pressure on the stick to avoid the aircraft tightening up the turn by itself.

That right there would go a long way towards the correct "feel".

So how do you determine from in game that you are close to xxxxxx value that you need to reduce the back pressure? You can't feel the G increasing, you don't get feedback through the stick and if your head is cranked you are unlikely to to notice the increasing rate of turn. So how do you do it? You don't have the tacit indicators that are available in a real life aircraft.

The same way you know how much to pull now.

We miss many informations about the feeling and sensations of our avatar.

In many other games there is a HUD that shows to the player the real conditions of the virtual pilot. For example the human body feels accellerations... you need only a little transparent square on the screen, with a disc inside who move according to the G forces/directions and change color according to the force power.

If we want a combat simulator then these informations need to be displayed on screen (think about the stamina bar in RO, or the gasping in ArmA): some can find them invasive, but in that case probably they don't care about a combat sim, but only a flight sim.

Anyway we're OT, we should open another thread to discuss this matter.

May I suggest that we open a new thread for that with precise suggestion to the devs based on our sim experiences/lifetime real flight and Math knowledge. Then they will only have to pick what suggestions fit their agenda regarding the Sim.

Manu, regarding your post for the visual acquisition range some months ago, I suggest you'd be the one opening that thread.

I'm going to open it under "Technical threads".

EDIT: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...848#post447848
Sorry again for my bad english.

You just don't have the evidence that that is actually what happened for a start, and even if it did happen it only would have happened when the CoG was at the point it created the 'slight' instability i.e. with a full fuel tank, so the effect you talk about would be dependent on fuel burn, the less fuel in the tank the lesser the effect.

no, the tank is frwd of the CG

it's rear of the next biggest mass (the engine) an according to at least 1 diagram it is 14 inches behind the datum point, when the tank is full the CoG comes back.

It's unstable unless the CG is in the forward position.

We just spent 46 pages hashing this out so I'm not going to get into it with you; don't bother replying.

Go back and read the thread; it's all there. This thread has devolved into fanboys re-interpreting the presented evidence into "merely a slight" instability because their egos can't handle it, so I'm not going to perpetuate it.

Ta ta

Which is pretty much what I said

A full fuel tank is what makes the CoG move back, as the fuel empties the CoG shifts forward and the aircraft becomes more stable, it's got nothing to do with fanboyism, it's just plain and simple facts, I do CoG calculations as part of my day job remember.

No the pilot's notes also say it is 'slightly' unstable

The fuel tank is right above the line between the first and the second third of the wing, thats where the cog usually lies, so if it gets lighter the cog doesn't move at all, afaik.

CoG is not a stationary datum, the CoG is dynamic and will shift with change in weight, the datum you are talking about is the AC aerodynamic centre, the point at which all the forces act, if the CoG is behind the AC then the aircraft is unstable and vice versa, so....given the Mass of the engine sits ahead of the AC and the fuel is sligtly behind then any reduction in the combined weight will bring the CoG forward.

Sorry my mistake, AC is where lift acts and CoG where weight acts, but the point is the same.

I meant to add, the reason I believe this is the effect is because the only Weight and balance diagrams I have seen of the Spitfire place the fuel tank moment just behind the datum point, as fuel reduces then the moment weight is offset by the constant moment weight of the engine which I think we can all agree is ahead of the datum.

I know this is going to sound rather foolish but can someone point me in the direction of the test report that mentions 3/4 in of travel for 3 G.

Its in here somewhere but I cannot find it, any hunts welcome

I can't find it either, I'm not as sure I ever saw it but I just assumed nobody was making it up.
Here is robteks first reference to it and it seems he was working from his own recollection of things, prior to this post I saw nothing with regards to that figure.

You've probably seen a doc related to the AFT mounted tank of the spitfire, scarcely used on fighters but primal on the reco version.

No it was the diagram on this thread, and let's face it, if the fuel tank was forward of the datum then the Spitfire could not have possibly been unstable, so in this case I am argueing 'for' your cause.

If the early Spits were so tail heavy then why did the MkVIII have 22.5lb added (weight and mount) to the tail? moment arm 175.5"

So a NACA engineer is a Spit fanboy?

"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. "

Some fanboys have a short memory.

Page 9 of the NACA report:

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k3...-page-011a.jpg

One report not yet mentioned is the Spitfire VA Stalling Characteristics by NACA: Where the Spitfire II Pilot's Notes warn about buffeting at the stall NACA sees this as "Good Stall Warning" and the Spitfire's stall characteristics "more desirable in some respects than those of any pursuit-type airplanes formerly tested in a similar manner.":

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k3...-page-003a.jpg

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k3...-page-004a.jpg

The main undesirable characteristic noted was the "uncontrollable rolling instability" with the gun ports open and in a steeply banked turn.

Interesting, thanks typhoon, the boxed extract sounds almost identical to what Mark Hanna was describing.

It also adds that there was 'unmistakeable' warning in the form of buffet.

Ahh....

You can look at the slope of the Cm/CL curve.....

Ahhh, elevator oscillation graphs....


Ahhh, Abrupt pull up characteristics.....

Elevator angle / Acceleration / stick force graphs....

It is very cut and dry. No emotional involvement required.

Here is the stick travel requirement the Spitfire did not meet.....

You guys need a copy of the report?

While CG location will effect the stall velocity, stall behavior is not stability.

It is apples and oranges.

"Being flown" in the stall buffet is not the same as "turns great in the stall buffet" either.

Carry on

An ode to stability and buffet with apologies to Plt Off Gillespie Magee

Oh How I thought I'd slipped the surly bonds of earth
I've danced and rolled and slipped and pulled and done a thousand things
I pulled once more .....Buffet flick ... oh no the lift has gone from my wings.

My Spit MKI yawed and clanged and bucked and pitched
The stability of this Spit MKI is such a bitch !

This I fear must be a spin
Time for me to put my best effort in.

I pulled the throttle back to Idle
I centralised the controls as I had been taught
Its times like these that things get a little fraught

I smoothly pushed on opposite rudder
But my Spit MKI she continued with the judder

I eased the stick progressively forward
smoothly smoothly son and you will get your reward.

And then it happened out she popped
All the banging and the clattering had stopped
as 90 degrees nose down my Spit MKI had flopped

But there I was at even lower Alt so very close to the heather.
Time for me to pull my best turn ever

But what should I do ?
Alas I had no clue

A fervent prayer to Crumpp Patron saint of the NACA
Surely he will guide me through this delicate matter

"Pull smoothly lad but don't let it Buffet" said Crumpp
I did as I was told ....... until I felt the fatal Thump
Impact ! .........bummer .....I was in the Hawkinge dump.

And that was that I was dead
I knew I shouldn't have listened to what got in my head

Now I really had slipped the surly bonds of earth
Up and up I went until there I was nearing heaven listening to the mirth.

When I got there what did I see ?
A raucous bunch of forum guys all from 1C

One by one they began to chant .... "Another victim of Turning room available is less than turning room required"
I hung my head in shame .... how could I have been so dumb? ..... How could this have transpired ?

At last a sign of hope, along he came Pontius ..... the world famous Pilate
Take heart young man .... my advice and gift today will make you smile a lot

The trick is to pull until you feel the "buzz" then hang on to it like glue
Only this young lad will keep you out of the Poo.
and now a gift .... a second chance at life for you.

In flash there I was 90 degrees nose down over Hawkinge
Time to do my stuff .... no time to grumble or to whinge

I smoothly pulled to the Buzz... Pilates words ringing in my ears like a bell
Boy o boy my Spit MKI she is turning well
And then there I was above the ground .... Gee that was swell.
Good on you Pontius your advice today has done me well.

So pilots all if you want to turn
pull to the buzz ..... lest you burn
Dont always listen to a Boffin
That just might lead you to a coffin.

And to the mods out there
its time to put this all to bed
please please .... close this bleeding thread !

So I guess that your comments

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k3...pe/page15j.jpg

and those that you posted on the PN's are worthless to this discussion and not worth bothering with? I take it the NACA report on the Spitfire's desirable stall behaviour was wrong because according to you the PNs say otherwise? Thanks for contradicting yourself again Crumpp...:rolleyes:

Good point!

Many threads deserve an epic poem,
Very few get one.
Thank you IvanK.

IvanK that was epic! :grin:

I can look at your graphs all day, it doesn't change the fact that the same report from NACA gives avery different picture to yours, next time quote me in context, I was talking about the apparent need to push the stick forward in the turn, I had no problem accepting the stick 'travel'......I said I assumed nobody was 'making it up'.
Like I said to Doggles, if there was a case where the Spit needed to have the stick 'pushed' in the turn it would have been subject to when the CoG was in the unstable region, and this would have been a temporary condition subject to fuel burn.

Does anybody have a good Spitfire weight and balance schedule? I just can't find one.

+1 - Brilliant!

+1

Great way to start the day. :)

bongo, 'Spitfire: The History' has some, but not for the MkI.

You seem to forget that there is a very distinct difference between slow speed stall behavior, which is desirable, and high speed stall behaviour, which might result in a flick roll and is undesirable.

You just mix the resulting explanations as you like.

That is the case.

Does not matter what the facts or that all of this is definable unlike anecodotes.

The bugtracker post is almost finished. I will submit it in the next day or so.

Well so far, you all have been quoting a different report on a different subject.

It does not make any sense but I guess it keeps you happy and feeling like you are contributing.

I believe I was refering to the text boxed in NZtyphoons post which is the same NACA report you are refering to, it does feel good contributing to the facts.

Look again and you will see they clearly talk about 'accelerated flight'...

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k3...-page-011a.jpg

The very very early spits and I am talking about the first two bladed version, not the mk 1a as per BOB, were tail heavy and had weights in the nose. This ws soon countered as the additional equipment and natural growth common in almost any aircraft did away with the need.

Thanks Al

It is a completely different report.

However, if you read the paragraph right below the one you highlighted, it says exactly the same thing I pointed out from the NACA measurements on flying qualities AND what is repeated in several warning found in the early mark Spitfire Operating Notes.

You want me to highlight it for you or can you find it?

So let me see if I understand you correctly..

When a spitfire experiences a high speed stall that results in a 'flick roll' it is undesirable..
When a Fw190 experiences a high speed stall that results in a 'flick roll' it is desirable..

Interesting..

Because we have all heard heard the stories of the German Fw190 pilots that used this technique to evade someone on their six, where they would intentionally cause a high speed stall (acc stall) that would cause the Fw190 to 'flick roll' onto its back to preform a fast split-s maneuver.. Which was a good (desirable) trait as far as the German Fw190 pilots were concerned..

So it appears that you have a double standard..

Spit does it it is a bad thing
Fw190 does it it is a good thing

Which IMHO sounds like you are the one who will just mix the resulting explanations as you like

No I can also see it, sounds like a real bind having to re center the stick by 3/4 inch or so, how did those RAF chaps ever manage to do it with all that vibration and shaking from the 'PRE-STALL' buffet giving ample warning?, they must have had to be real geniuses to remember to push the stick a 'bit'.

yes but it is adopted and measured and defineable.....so it's ok.

I don't understand why folks are going nuts about the Spitfires longitudinal instability, it wasn't a problem for any pilot or how NACA put it "the well know long period oscillations have no correlation with the handling qualities of an airplane". Basically, it doesn't matter.

Slightly pithy but pretty much on the nose.