Which has what to do with anything?

I never claimed to go to Cambridge. I went to Embry Riddle. I do have friends who went to other colleges and they also know of the Spitfire's instability.

What does your point have to do with that fact or any fact relevant to this discussion?

Or the fact, it is Cambridge University that published the book??

http://www.eng.cam.ac.uk/teaching/index-freshers.html

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Cambri...m&z=16&iwloc=B

Right, which has what to do with the fact some airplanes have higher energy stall warning's including buzz than others?

Also, what does that have to do with the ability of a pilot to precisely fly to the nibble and precisely back off to smooth air in order to maximize his aircraft's turn performance?

Are you going to have a go at answering the the dive recovery question ?

Hey guys

Based on your experances with Crump..

Is it safe for me to assume that since he has NOT produce a picture of..

How did he say it?

piles of bent wings at the repair depots during the Battle of Britain

That he was just talking out of his 'A' and that I should stop waiting for him to provide the link to said picture..

Thanks in advance!

I would not want to be in this situation with an aircraft that is neutral or unstable as you want to be able to pull precisely and quickly to the maximum acceleration the airframe can handle while reducing power.

We have had this discussion before on the "nibble", too. If you are in the nibble, you are NOT flying a maximum performance constant altitude turn.

What does that have to do with the ability of a pilot to precisely fly to the nibble and precisely back off to smooth air in order to maximize his aircraft's turn performance?

IvanK,

Your question really makes one wonder how many of those men did not return home because their airframe failed.

If you read Morgan and Shacklady, there is a listing of each serial number and its fate. There are early Mark Spitfires that were lost to "structural failure" or "wing came off in aerobatic flight".

IvanK,

Your question really makes one wonder how many of those men did not return home because their airframe failed.

If you read Morgan and Shacklady, there is a listing of each serial number and its fate. There are early Mark Spitfires that were lost to "structural failure" or "wing came off in aerobatic flight".

Most of the listing were just lost to unknown circumstances.

T-38 manual

"Begin by entering a 2 to 3 G turn with MIL power and approximately 300 KCAS. Increase the bank and backstick pressure as required to achieve the light buffet in a level turn. Note the turn rate.This is optimum turn performance for the T-38."


T-45 ACM manual:

"In general, if you don't know what to do, nibble of
buffet is a good place to start to maneuver your airplane well"

"Our break turns should be the nibble of buffet AT A MINIMUM, more like heavy buffet."

T-38 and T-45 are both jets...thrust limited and both have low aspect ratio wings.

Follow the Spitfire Operating Notes for a high aspect ratio aircraft that is aerodyanmically limited:

http://img607.imageshack.us/img607/2471/page15j.jpg

Its not a case of not "wanting" to be in the situation... Operational pilots often find themselves in situations they dont want to be in. The question put was quite specific, a Spitfire MKI no AOA gauges no accelerometers just you the pilot and your basic airframe.

How do you propose to "back off from the nibble" and by exactly how much? especially in an aeroplane with such lack of precision in the pitch circuit as you imply throughout this thread ? Your life is hanging in the balance, what cue do you have in your Spit MKI that you are doing your best ?

I think all thats going to happen with your technique is the "crump" sound as the Spitfire MKI impacts Terra firma. If you think you can back off the buzz/tickle/nibble and guarantee where you really are you are dreaming ! .... thats why buzz/tickle/nibble feel is taught to Miltary pilots world wide.

Crumpp, I've never heard of piles of bent wings during the BoB as a result of either pitch sensitivity or instability. It sounds quite extraordinary. Can you supply some references?

From "Aerobatics Principles and Practice" by David Robson, ex Fighter Pilot,Miltary test pilot (ETPS graduate.)

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

I know that you didn't go to Cambridge as to Embury Riddie that may or may not be the case. I do know that when you offerred to debate Longitudional Stability by standards one was to do with roll rates and nothing to do with what you wanted. I believe that one of the other standards you wanted to use is to do with ordering spare parts, not exactly stability. I wouldn't expect a graduate from Embry Riddle to make that kind of mistake, its possible of course but it is a basic error

But you did say that Cambridge and others used the Spitfire wing when you clearly don't know Because its another example of you making up statements without foundation to support your case.


Cambridge University Press is a publishing house NOT a University. The University is an admin for the collages not a seat of learning and supplies support to the member seats of learning, including publishing.

These tend to prove that you trawled for something to support your statement rather than have actual evidence

Speaking of evidence and more importantly, we are all waiting for your source or evidence re piles of bent wings in the BOB waiting for repair. I produced two pieces of evidence you have have yet to produce anything.

You once accused me of being unprofessional so either substantiate your claim or withdraw it, its the professional thing to do

Right....

Edge of the Buffet is not IN the buffet.

http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/1654/buffetaeros.jpg


If you have no other guide, the buzz is useful for finding CLmax. Don't fly in the nibble but back off to just before though IF you want maximum turn performance.

http://www.caa.govt.nz/FIG/advanced-...ate-turns.html

You can fly in the nibble if you want, IvanK. However somebody that is turning in the same airplane at the point of smooth air just before the nibble will out turn you. That is how the physics works.

Right.....Again, I would not want to be in that situation with a neutral or unstable aircraft with a light stick force per G and extremely small amount of available stick control.

That why we see charge sheets with "structural failure" and "wings came off in aerobatic flight".

Making up what????

Start another thread on this off topic sideshow. Cambridge awards degrees, they published the book, and it is used as a reference in many engineering curriculuums.

If you don't like those facts, tell Cambridge not me.

Of course you are going to provide a listing of all Mk Is - with evidence -lost to structural and wing failure between 1939 and the middle of 1941 because after that most Mk Is ended up at OTUs.

Then you can list all Mk IIs lost to same cause - with evidence.

Then list all Mk Vs, knowing that from Quill several Spitfire Vs were lost due to bad loading at a squadron level in 1942.

As for "lost to unknown causes" this could mean anything and to use this category to prove anything is a waste of time

In fact how about we all do a search for early Spitfires lost to wing or structural failure?

From http://www.spitfires.ukf.net/ which is well researched and more accessible than M & S

Mk I

K - N series (first two production batches Spitfire I)

*K9838 Ia 51 EA MII FF 6-1-39 41S 11-1-39 struct fail in dive Eryholme Yorks 16-3-39 SOC FH21.25 pilot killed

K9977 Ia 191 EA MII FF 16-5-39 602S 18-5-39 lost wing during aerobatics crashed Haddington CE Lothian 30-12-39 Sgt Bailey killed SOC 11-2-40

N3120 Ia 391 EA MIII FF 29-10-39 6MU 3-11-39 266S 20-1-40 broke up in test flight to alt Pilot Gleed thrown out crashed 14.40hrs Littleport Cambs 18-2-40 SOC 22-2-40

*#N3191 Ia 432 EA MIII FF 23-11-39 24MU 2-12-39 234S 22-3-40 lost wings in dive crashed nr Truro Cornwall CE 16-1-41 AST 14-2-41 SOC 23-4-41

Four

R Series:

R6692 Ia 746 EA MIII FF 3-6-40 6MU 5-6-40 609S 7-6-40 Overstressed attacking Ju88 CE 12-8-40 SOC 2-9-40

#R6777 Ia 803 EA MIII FF 21-6-40 8MU 22-6-40 65S 12-7-40 C2 ops 30-7-40 GAL 616S 20-8-40 72S 2-9-40 92S 3-11-40 145S 4-2-41 AFDU 6-3-41 152S 13-3-41 SF H 10-4-41 57OTU 4-8-41 61OTU 3-1-42 Broke up in air and crashed Blackbill Glam FAC3 8-7-42

#R6882 Ia 840 EA MIII FF 1-7-40 (CMG) 6MU Brize Norton 28-7-40 cannon wing fitt 7OTU 3-9-40 AFDU Duxford 11-1-41 R-RH 10-2-41 Cv Vb M45 92S 'QJ-N' 9-3-41 609S 30-8-41 Broke up in air and abandoned 2.5m NE of East Stoke Notts FACE 10-1-42 SOC 17-1-42

$R7033 PRIV 1738 HEA M45 HAL 8-6-41 Cv PRIII Type C 1PRU Benson 7-8-41 loss of control in storm at high alt pilot thrown clear at 1000ft landed safe total wreck nr Bishops Stortford 5-10-41 remains to RAE for accident invest 1-42

#R7064 Ia 1431 EA MIII FF 5-2-41 9MU 6-2-41 411S 5-7-41 52OTU 23-11-41 struct damaged in spin crashed and hit fence nr Aston Down CE 25-3-42 SOC 3-4-42

Five

X4009 - X4997

*X4056 Ia 972 EA MIII FF 1-8-40 39MU 2-8-40 616S 30-8-40 Wing came off during dive 8m SE of Kirton-in-Lindsey FAC3 8-11-40 SOC 11-11-40

#X4234 Ia 1031 EA MIII FF 15-8-40 8MU 16-8-40 609S 24-8-40 damaged combat P/O Staples safe 27-9-40 AST 66S 13-10-40 57OTU 1-11-40 FACB 27-6-42 ros wing fail in spin crashed Alsager Cheshire CE 25-9-42

X4613 Ia 1233 EA MIII FF 15-10-40 6MU 15-10-40 ? 603S 17-10-40 266S 24-10-40 Lost wing and crashed Gedney Hill Lincs CE 2-3-41 SOC 20-3-41

*X4662 Ia 1260 EA MIII FF 1-11-40 9MU 8-11-40 485S 15-3-41 61OTU 25-6-41 131S 17-7-41 pull out steep dive stbd wing broke away crashed dbf pilot killed 12.07hrs Northallerton 27-7-41 SOC 1-8-41

*X4680 Ia 1264 EA MIII FF 2-11-40 12MU 5-11-40 72S 17-1-41 CB ops 9-4-41 Scottish Aviation 123S 3-6-41 steep dive and pull out from cloud wings and tailplane broke off fus hit ground Kirknewton pilot killed 16.00hrs 15-6-41 SOC 1-7-41 FH77.50 RAE accident invest 20-8-41

#X4854 Ia 1351 EA MIII FF 14-12-40 MU 16-12-42 53OTU into sea nr Dunraven Castle Thought struct fail of stbd wing 2-1-43

*X4381 Ia 1122 EA MIII FF 6-9-40 6MU 10-9-40 152S 13-9-40 501S 'SD-J' 5-11-40 53OTU 7-7-41 stbd wing broke off after high speed dive out of cloud Tonpentre nr Pontypridd dbf CE 16.30hrs 6-8-41 SOC 21-8-41 RAE 30-1-42

*X4421 Ia 1138 EA MIII FF 12-9-40 8MU 13-9-40 66S 16-9-40 57OTU 21-10-40 steep dive from low cloud violent pull out high speed stall spun wing fail Pilot thrown clear but killed 15.15hrs crashed Northrop Flints 27-3-41 SOC cancel RAE 8-4-41 AST 13-5-41 rebuilt as Va M45 164S 29-4-42 FACE 18-8-42 (Rebuild suspect)

Eight

17 with structural or wing failure, seven (*) of which occurred during a dive or pulling out of a dive: See Henshaw

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k3...-page-003a.jpg
http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k3...-page-001a.jpg

Of the rest (#) six - N3191, R6777, R6882, R7064, X4234, X4854 - were old, retired Spitfire Is in OTUs. One, R7033, was a PRU aircraft caught in a storm at high altitude.

Out of 17 structural failures three were recently delivered Spitfires: two, K9977 and N3120 had structural or wing failures before the Pilot's Notes were printed in July 1940 while K9838 broke up in a dive in early 1939 - it might well have been these three incidents which prompted the warnings to be printed.

Why don't your read Morgan and Shacklady. They have a list of the serial numbers and known fates of many of the Spitfires.

They even have pictures of the remains of some of the aircraft that shed wings during high speed maneuvering.

Are you going to make me scan them or can you just pick up the book and read it?

Infact it's the entire picture... they says those were the accidents reported to them... it's only a speculation that they were the only accidents during all the war as you said since:

1) Was the AAIB the only one actually called to investigate on accidents?
2) How many accidents were not reported?
3) We don't know the AAIB method of investigation: did they need the wreckage?... or they could investigate by interviews with the witnesses of the accident?
4) As you says, I repeat, I can be that some accidents not reported as result of a past investigation. A plane is losing its wings during recovery from a dive? The first accident of this kind required an investigation, probably also the second one... but how many until it's clear that the plane can be pull so much and it become ?

We can't have unanswered questions... until then I can't trust they are not the only accidents during the world war.

The one you posted is not a fact, but it's a very good starting point for the real one.

In fact it's much easier going through http://www.spitfires.ukf.net/ which is better researched and better laid out, and more accessible, then M & S.


1) The body responsible for investigating air accidents before and during WW2 was the AIB (Accidents Investigation Branch) which was responsible for investigating all air accidents. http://www.aaib.gov.uk/about_us/history.cfm
2) Why bother speculating on a question which can never be answered? It's like asking how long is a piece of string.
3) Presumably whatever was available - if a wreck was at the bottom of the sea AIB would not have gone chasing after it.
4)Again, unquantifiable speculation

Good stuff...

He says 25 were lost due to structural failure he uncovered in his research. That is quite a few.

That is only the ones that were lost due to total failure as well as the ones we know about. It does not tell us the number of aircraft which flew home with bent wings or the ones that broke up over enemy territory.

To put that 25 unfortunate Spitfires in perspective:

~2488 Spitfire Mk I and II's were produced

2488/25 = 99.52

So for every 100 Spitfires, one was lost to structural failure.

Now let's compare that to the Beechcraft Bonanza which also had some developmental issues with the V-tail that resulted in structural failure. It is the airplane that forged the "Doctor Killer" reputation.

>17000 Beechcraft Debonair/Bonanza's have been built.

Taking structural failures from 2007 on back we find that 148 airframes have been lost. We have much better records of a peacetime GA aircraft.

http://www.thomaspturner.net/infligh...ups%20NTSB.htm

17,000 / 148 = 114.8

So, For every 115 Beechcraft Debonair/Bonanza's built, ONE has experienced structural failure.

http://www.tsgc.utexas.edu/archive/g...ics/vtail.html

I think the early Mark Spitfire would have had the same reputation in peacetime as the Bonanza due to its high rate of structural failure.

The events of WWII overshadowed the longitudinal instability issue in the early Mark Spitfires.

1) in all probability yes....it's their job, why call in people who aren't qualified?
2) probably a very small amount, in all likelyhood just the events which lead to MIA and unknown fates.
3) as long as the methods produced the answer does it matter?
4) let's not forget that most Spitfire pilots were flying with a squadron and the squadron pilots are all credible eye witnesses to what happens, through all of the recounted stories and biographies etc nobody ever mentioned the Spitfire as being 'particularily' weak or seeing squad mates breaking up with any regularity.

It is not speculation. It is a fact, the early mark Spitfire had neutral to unstable longitudinal stability at normal and aft CG. It is a fact, the controls were too light and too effective.

This combination is why you see the warnings in the Operating Notes.

It was real and it could kill you if ignored.

So now we have Beechcraft Bonanzas and Debonairs in this Spitfire thread !!!!!! .... talk about thread drift.

Keeping with the drift though, in your Bonanza V tail structural failure number crunching example you quote 17,000 Bonanza/Debonairs being made but isnt the Debonair a single fin aeroplane ? Did it have the same structural issues as the V tail Bonanzas ? If it did fair enough but if it didn't should it be included ?

Dont really care either way just saying.

Cambridge don't issue degrees, they do publish books which are used in institutions but they do not teach.

However and most importantly we are still waiting for your evidence to support your statement about piles of bent wings in the BOB.

Without evidence your statement is useless, should be withdrawn and without it your argument goes with it.

You will agree I am sure that it the professional approach

Once again you are putting your own spin onto a paper that it presented to you.

Where does he say only Mk 1 and II's? He doesn't so lets apply your logic to all the spits produced in the war
23,000/25 = 920 So for every 920 Spitfires one was lost to structural failure
So for every 920 Spitfires produced in the war ( I could increase this number to all spits built) One experienced a structural failure.
In other words you are about 8 times safer in a Spit in wartime than in a peacetime BonanzaI think the early Mark Spitfire would have had a much better reputation in peacetime than the Bonanza due to its much safer record iro structural security

Thks for the answers.

1) I looked in the website but I asked because it's not written that's the only responsable of investigation but it's part of the entire Department.

A Department could delegate some accidents to a company and other crashes to another: my doubt is the existence of another qualified company during that time... it's a natural to make use of external help (the AAIB was indipendent) during difficult times. So is it sure that the RAF had not a internal investigation departement and AAIB was the only responsable? Could it be that it was responsable for the accidents in a determined territory (England)?

2) & 3) I ask because of the possibility of not investigated accidents regarding structural failure: if so the Mr.Newton's numbers posted by Glider are far less interesting: as I said, since those were only accidents with a defined wreckage, how many more planes went down for structural failure over the sea (the channel, Malta ect)?
I think an investigation would always require witnesses... my question was if there would be an investigation at all in case of no wreckage.

4) Bongo, I know... infact I expect that the loss of the wings was a rare accident: I think more of a not critically damaged airframe for which, I think to have read somewhere, the plane had to be partially rebuild... could a plane with partial airframe damage have the same performance? Does its manouvrability and stability remain the same? Because IMO in combat area easily a damaged plane would be taken down by the enemy...

I know it's speculation, but not useless IMO. To have the complete picture we need to be sure of these things, otherwise there is no absolute truth. ;)

Garbage, he's talking about all Spitfires built

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

~20,351/25 Spitfires built = 1 in 821

Nope, the Beechcraft, a high speed interceptor fighter built to withstand combat conditions in wartime, was 7 - 8 times more likely to fall apart. :grin: :grin: :grin:

One can speculate on this as much as one likes - unless Crumpp or anyone else can provide documentary evidence to back such statements that's all it is. Besides which Spitfires returning home, even with buckled wings (assuming the stacks of buckled wings seen in MU hangers can be believed), were not destroyed through structural failure and could be repaired and put back into service.

To match Beechcraft Bonanza stats for every Spitfire known to have been destroyed through structural failure another 4.5, or over 100 at least would have to fail over enemy territory - a wonderful propaganda opportunity had it happened. No doubt Crumpp can present lots of documented evidence that this happened.

Can't remember anything like this being written about the Spitfire, even by its harshest critics, including NACA and the Pilot's Notes...:grin:

That is correct. A bent airframe is not good. The plane is hard to control and weakenend.


There were plenty of uninvestigated accidents. In wartime, they would be chaulked up to the enemy. Common sense tells us that wings coming off in a dogfight would be chaulked up to enemy fire or pilot suddenly breaking out of a turn to wings level was hit.

There would be no way to resurect the dead or examine the wreckage to discover the airframe was broken during a flick maneuver or bent in a hard turn above Va.

Facts are we will never be able to quantify that statistic. None of this changes the defined and measured characteristics of the aircraft nor does it invalidate the Operating Note warnings.

The issue was solved in the Spitfire Mk V!!

You understand that the bob-weights and subsequent empennage changes to the design were to fix the instability??

It is only a factor in the early Mark Spitfires.

Aerodynamically, the instability is a very easy fix. The only reason it was not solved much earlier is the fact the Air Ministry had no defined standards for stability and control. Without measureable standards, the pilot stories of "easy to fly" simply overshadowed the few engineers who knew better.

Please provide documented evidence that Henshaw was only referring to Spitfire Is and IIs, otherwise this is just clutching at straws.

AA876 Vb 2223 EA M45 FF 25-10-41 during test flight 6-2-42 George Pickering reached a speed of 520mph in a dive. The aircraft disintigrated He was severely injured and never flew again. SOC before delivery not to be replaced. Airframe to RAE 9-4-42 for accident invest

MA480 IX CBAF M63 46MU 1-6-43 82MU 14-6-43 La Pampa 2-7-43 Casablanca 14-7-43 Middle East 1-9-43 Dived into ground Egypt FACB 10-10-43

We do seem to be in the normal situation where one side produces evidence to the best of their ability and often in duplicate. And the nay sayers produce nothing to support theirs and depend on ever more silly questions.

On the Bent wings waiting repair being a 1944 issue
1) An original document from the NA which is clear as to the cause of the problem in late 1944 and how to resolve it
2) the 2TAF series of books from C Shores a highly recognised author on aviation which also says the same

On the Bent wings waiting repair being a BOB issue
1) Someone says that they remember reading something somewhere
2) Crumpps statement with nothing to support it
In other words nothing

On the number of Breakups due to structural faiulure being small
1) A published work written by someone involved in Air Investigations for 50 years
2) The numbers matching those printed in the M S book
3) Henshaws paper the number are different but even lower

On the numbers of breakups being higher
1) I looked in the website but I asked because it's not written that's the only responsable of investigation but it's part of the entire Department.In otherwords the department has more responsibilities and this section is responsible for Air Investigations.
2) Statements that others may have come down at sea or in enemy held areas.
Of course this almost certainly happened. However its a question that we will never know the results to. Its something that happens to every airforce all we can do is do the best we can with what we know. In the same way we do not know how many of these had been damaged in combat.

So can we take it that Crumpp, given, the chance, would not pilot an early Mk of Spitfire as it was a death trap?

Notice they are all over the sky and even upside down.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=TXxzlOH92as
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6c3v...eature=related

True but it gets you home a broken one doesn't

.True but you need to prove that he is only talking about Mk I and II. Its worth remembering that the fix wasn't in place for the start of Mk V production so you need to factor that in.

And you still need to prove that there were any bent wings in the BOB waiting repair let alone the statement you made. Without evidence you have no back up and its only another unsupported theory.

Crumpp you better talk to Duxford they may not know what you know

Just going thru the list in Morgan and Shacklady, I have counted 13 structural failures so far and I am only halfway thru the Mark I list.

It was serious enough that X4228 went to Farnborough on 24-8-40 to be used in testing to discover the cause of wing structure failures.

On a side note, X4181 on 17-840 was designated in 616 Squadron for "100 Octane Testing" and was shot down by a Bf-109 on 26-8-40.

Should have read this list earlier!!

The accident statistics include both types.

Again, the failures were notable enough for the RAF to send the plane to be tested to discover why the wings were failing in August of 1940.

Damn shame they did not have standards in place and that stability and control was such a new science at the time. Lives could have been saved.

Curiosity and research for detail are silly questions?... tell me you're not an historian...

And you call this evidence!?!?

What about the M S book having the same source of "Spitfire at war" => AAIB?

Now if the AAIB data is not usefull to understand the real rate of structural damage, since it ignores the accident over the sea and in enemy territory, what is the meaning to post it?
The real numbers are different, period, since we don't know how many poor guys died for overstressed airframe and they were filed as KIA because of the enemy.

3 books: one has different numbers... Which ones are the corrected numbers?

Look I've "produced" a question about that data...

Really? I ask it because I don't know... I would like a doc by the Air Ministry stating that every accident need to be investigated officialy by the AAIB.

Or if Mr.Newton said "We had to investigate every accident during the war" it would be enough. But it does not say it... so sorry if I've some silly doubt.

Then that number about the rate of Spitfires lost for airframe damage is almost useless since it's a small sample mostly no related to combat. That was my first statement.

In enemy territory, in combat, numbers can easily be different. Are numbers about accidents because of clouds really important when they did fight at 5km??? Does the pilot need to land in the fog in enemy territory?

So lets stick to the data about stick forces, oversensivity, AoA e structural limits and lets try to analyse them together. Without the necessity to bring on numbers and reports who do not help.

Mainly because THEY DID NOT FLY AS WE DO IN THE SIM.

I sure they know it. Everyone of those Spitfires is modified so that it does not have the instability of the early marks.

Damn shame they did not have standards in place and that stability and control was such a new science at the time. Lives could have been saved.

That's right.

Please try to understand that my target here is not having Spitfires losing wings at every turn... it's having a player who must take care of that as the real pilots did.

Hopefully not just the Spitfire, the 109 had particularily weak wing roots I believe....but hopefully we will get a whole new thread about that one.

Of course!! But it's seems that some people really don't care about having a realistic sim.

Rubbish......or BALONEY as you like to put it...

Heres the Airworthiness approval notes from the CAA on 2 different Mk 1 Spitfires which are flying today, note the modifications do not include anything with regards to stability issues.

http://www.caa.co.uk/AANDocs/29100/29100000000.pdf

http://www.caa.co.uk/AANDocs/29337/29337000000.pdf

I know you are going to come straight back with the 'look, it says no intentional spinning' but that is a blanket ban on permit to fly aircraft for similar reasons to the RAF's operational reasons during the war, an unnecessary and risky manouver and the aircraft are very expensive.

Heres Dave Gilmour of Pink Floyds old mustang permit......we all know they were allowed to spin right?

http://www.caa.co.uk/AANDocs/25986/25986000000.pdf

and another

http://www.caa.co.uk/AANDocs/28790/28790000000.pdf

Heres a 109 permit

http://www.caa.co.uk/AANDocs/22658/22658000000.pdf

the CAA airworthiness notes database search, check it out, quite interesting

http://www.caa.co.uk/application.asp...pe=65&appid=10

Yes, and I've been argueing with them for 70 odd pages now.

They restricted the CG.

http://img594.imageshack.us/img594/9...spitfirecg.jpg

The Spitfire is placarded against spinning.

His Mustang is prohibited from spinning too.

Of course, nothing to do with the original aircraft being placarded.

By how much? I think you will find the CoG is probably different because there are no guns or ammo, anyway the point is proved that you were wrong and 'no' modifications such as you claimed were carried out.

Just like many other aircraft

Yes, that's what I'm saying, why have you made this comment?

But everything to do with the reasons why I mentioned.

Thanks for posting the CAA links!

The CoG limits are exactly the same as given in the revised manual for the standard elevator without inertia device and with DeHavilland propeller. At normal service load the CoG was around 7.7" aft datum point so there was no need for the bob weight. Without the seat armour and weapons the CoG is of course even more forward.

However, the NACA tested Spitfire had the Rotol propeller which was more sensitive for the CoG due to lighter blades, hence the aft limit was 7.5" aft datum point without bob weight and NACA had the CoG at 7.8". In other words such loading was not allowed without bob weigh according to revised CoG limits. Also the Spitfire II manual quoted many times here is for the Rotol propeller, hence the warnings before the CoG limits were revised. The manual for the DeHavilland propelled aircraft and the later revisions, after the CoG limits were revised, do not contain such warnings.

Now, we have here about 70 pages of some members (apparently all from blue side for one reason or another) demanding that the stability and elevator control of the early Spitfires should be modeled according to the worst case scenario; Rotol propeller and the CoG behind the limits for such combination :)

BTW wasn't there some one claiming that the all currently flying Spitfires have the bob weighs?

I do consider myself to be an amature historian, which is why I always have some substance behind my theory and statement. It may not be everything everyone want but there is something.

Lets take the example of the bending of the wings. Crumps says this happened a lot and there were piles of wings to be repaired. My belief is that this happened in late 1944 when Spitfires were being used for tassks way beyond what they were designed for. I produced two different sources both of which are very clear and invite Crumpp to supply his evidence that this happened in the BOB. Result silence.
I could have pointed out that the fix was very simple, clip the wings of the SPitfire as thats what they did in 1944. If bending had been a problem in the BOB then the solution would have been quick and effective, clip the wings of the Mk I and II spits. I could have pointed out that this wasn't done and that would indicate that there wasn't a problem with the bending of the wings. But I didn't, why, because I wouldn't say such a thing without proof. Its more than you have put forward. You have a theory but nothing behind it

Possible but very unlikely. The reports are procduced during the war, the book many years later.


There is no way they can know for certainty as to what happened in some cases over german held areas. However you accuse them of ignoring accidents which is insulting and you do it without evidence which compounds the insult.
You are also factually wrong. The vast majority of Typhoon losses due to the loss of the tail happened over Germany areas but this wasn't ignored. The pilots were aware of what was going on, it was reported and the issue was addressed. To pretend that Spits breaking up would be ignored is clearly wrong and without evidence again insulting.
You may well question my approach to historical facts but I would never, ever, say such a thing without something to support what I said.
I await your supporting evidence with some interest, note evidence not theory. It shouldn't be difficult as you believe it happended so often finding an unexplained loss that was put forward and then ignored should be straight forward.

If you want that then I suggest you go and look for it. Of course you can have a theory but a theory it remains unless and until you can support it. The AAAIB can only look at things that are referred to them, it always was and should always be that any unexplained accident should be reported to them. You forget that its in the interest of the pilots and crew to report these incidents as their lives are on the line
Its not a small sample it all the incidents that were reported to them. If you believe that there were others that were ignored then support that statement. Again without evidence its a theory without support

This I have already covered

Or is that pilot reports, test pilot reports, test establishments reports and official accidents reports that are to be ignored because they are inconvenient?

I don't hear Crumpp, yourself or anyone else demanding that the Spitfire be easy to land, easy to take off, be faultless in a turn and always turning inside the Me109 as did the German pilots and test establishments or are you in favour of such realistic factors

The Spitfires listed by bongodriver have Merlin 35 engines. The Merlin 35 engine is ~1550lbs dry weight. I did not catch that.

The Merlin III is 1375lbs dry weight.

The Merlin 35 is a post war engine and adds considerable weight to the front of the airplane shifting the CG forward.

The guns are removed along with all of the magazine, heating, and ducting also shifts the CG forward.

You can bet the new limits are not unstable or netural at any point.

It would be interesting to see the new weight and balance of the modern Spitfires.

Bending was a problem in the BoB. The RAF wanted it investigated and fixed. In August 1940, they provided a test aircraft to meet that goal.

But haven't you been maintaining that the CoG is not the bigger issue with the Spitfires stability problems?

Serial Numbers please, and please scan and post the relevant pages. How many of them were elderly airframes in OTUs?

There was no Spitfire I serialed X4228

Source?

Is the opposite. In the Thomas/Shore book on the Typhoon/Tempest there is 18 losses listed as 'sf' (structural failure) of which 14 were over Britain and only 2 of these past Jan 1944.

I don't know where he got that serial number from. Notice it skips the numbers between 4189 and 4230.

X4009 X4038 30
X4051 X4070 20
X4101 X4110 10
X4159 X4188 30
X4231 X4280 50
X4317 X4356 40
X4381 X4390 10
X4409 X4428 20

X4471 X4505 35
X4538 X4562 25
X4585 X4624 40
X4641 X4685 45
X4708 X4722 15
X4765 X4789 25

X4815 X4859 45
X4896 X4945 50
X4988 X4997 10

evidence please. which airframe and supporting evidence as to what test the plane was to meet

Also still waiting for your piles of wings waiting to be fixed in BOB

I stand corrected

Nice of you to admit you were incorrect Glider, unlike another person who does a 'song and dance' to deflect the discussion away from his error.;)

Typo...X4268.

I hope you do not sit and wonder when others show you the same courtesy you show them.

It should not be a mystery.

Did you locate X4181?? The one used for 100 Octane testing in August of 1940 in 616 Squadron?

To reiterate: From http://www.spitfires.ukf.net/ which is well researched and more accessible than M & S:

Mk Is less than 1 year old lost through structural failure in flight:

K9977 Ia 191 EA MII FF 16-5-39 602S 18-5-39 lost wing during aerobatics crashed Haddington CE Lothian 30-12-39 Sgt Bailey killed SOC 11-2-40

N3120 Ia 391 EA MIII FF 29-10-39 6MU 3-11-39 266S 20-1-40 broke up in test flight to alt Pilot Gleed thrown out crashed 14.40hrs Littleport Cambs 18-2-40 SOC 22-2-40

X4613 Ia 1233 EA MIII FF 15-10-40 6MU 15-10-40 ? 603S 17-10-40 266S 24-10-40 Lost wing and crashed Gedney Hill Lincs CE 2-3-41 SOC 20-3-41

R6692 Ia 746 EA MIII FF 3-6-40 6MU 5-6-40 609S 7-6-40 Overstressed attacking Ju88 CE 12-8-40 SOC 2-9-40

Mk Is - older airframes on OTUs lost through structural failure in flight:

R6777 Ia 803 EA MIII FF 21-6-40 8MU 22-6-40 65S 12-7-40 C2 ops 30-7-40 GAL 616S 20-8-40 72S 2-9-40 92S 3-11-40 145S 4-2-41 AFDU 6-3-41 152S 13-3-41 SF H 10-4-41 57OTU 4-8-41 61OTU 3-1-42 Broke up in air and crashed Blackbill Glam FAC3 8-7-42

R6882 Ia 840 EA MIII FF 1-7-40 (CMG) 6MU Brize Norton 28-7-40 cannon wing fitt 7OTU 3-9-40 AFDU Duxford 11-1-41 R-RH 10-2-41 Cv Vb M45 92S 'QJ-N' 9-3-41 609S 30-8-41 Broke up in air and abandoned 2.5m NE of East Stoke Notts FACE 10-1-42 SOC 17-1-42

R7064 Ia 1431 EA MIII FF 5-2-41 9MU 6-2-41 411S 5-7-41 52OTU 23-11-41 struct damaged in spin crashed and hit fence nr Aston Down CE 25-3-42 SOC 3-4-42

X4234 Ia 1031 EA MIII FF 15-8-40 8MU 16-8-40 609S 24-8-40 damaged combat P/O Staples safe 27-9-40 AST 66S 13-10-40 57OTU 1-11-40 FACB 27-6-42 ros wing fail in spin crashed Alsager Cheshire CE 25-9-42

X4854 Ia 1351 EA MIII FF 14-12-40 MU 16-12-42 53OTU into sea nr Dunraven Castle Thought struct fail of stbd wing 2-1-43


Less than 1 year old lost through structural failure in dive:

K9838 Ia FF 6-1-39 41S 11-1-39 struct fail in dive Eryholme Yorks 16-3-39 SOC FH21.25 pilot killed

X4056 Ia 972 EA MIII FF 1-8-40 39MU 2-8-40 616S 30-8-40 Wing came off during dive 8m SE of Kirton-in-Lindsey FAC3 8-11-40 SOC 11-11-40

X4421 Ia 1138 EA MIII FF 12-9-40 8MU 13-9-40 66S 16-9-40 57OTU 21-10-40 steep dive from low cloud violent pull out high speed stall spun wing fail Pilot thrown clear but killed 15.15hrs crashed Northrop Flints 27-3-41 SOC cancel RAE 8-4-41 AST 13-5-41 rebuilt as Va M45 164S 29-4-42 FACE 18-8-42 (Rebuild suspect)

X4662 Ia 1260 EA MIII FF 1-11-40 9MU 8-11-40 485S 15-3-41 61OTU 25-6-41 131S 17-7-41 pull out steep dive stbd wing broke away crashed dbf pilot killed 12.07hrs Northallerton 27-7-41 SOC 1-8-41

X4680 Ia 1264 EA MIII FF 2-11-40 12MU 5-11-40 72S 17-1-41 CB ops 9-4-41 Scottish Aviation 123S 3-6-41 steep dive and pull out from cloud wings and tailplane broke off fus hit ground Kirknewton pilot killed 16.00hrs 15-6-41 SOC 1-7-41 FH77.50 RAE accident invest 20-8-41

Older airframes lost in dive:

N3191 Ia 432 EA MIII FF 23-11-39 24MU 2-12-39 234S 22-3-40 lost wings in dive crashed nr Truro Cornwall CE 16-1-41 AST 14-2-41 SOC 23-4-41

X4381 Ia 1122 EA MIII FF 6-9-40 6MU 10-9-40 152S 13-9-40 501S 'SD-J' 5-11-40 53OTU 7-7-41 stbd wing broke off after high speed dive out of cloud Tonpentre nr Pontypridd dbf CE 16.30hrs 6-8-41 SOC 21-8-41 RAE 30-1-42

Overstressed in storm at high altitude:

R7033 PRIV 1738 HEA M45 HAL 8-6-41 Cv PRIII Type C 1PRU Benson 7-8-41 loss of control in storm at high alt pilot thrown clear at 1000ft landed safe total wreck nr Bishops Stortford 5-10-41 remains to RAE for accident invest 1-42

17 with structural or wing failure, seven of which occurred during a dive or pulling out of a dive: See Henshaw

Six - N3191, R6777, R6882, R7064, X4234, X4854 - old, retired Spitfire Is in OTUs. One, R7033, was a PRU aircraft caught in a storm at high altitude.

Out of 17 structural failures three were recently delivered Spitfires: two, K9977 and N3120 had structural or wing failures before the Pilot's Notes were printed in July 1940 while K9838 broke up in a dive in early 1939 - it might well have been these three incidents which prompted the warnings to be printed.

Now let's see Crumpp's serial numbers and comments.

What a shame the Air Ministry did not have stability and control standards in place.

They would have realized something was not kosher when the aircraft motion did not align with predicted results.

And obviously not as in-depth as M&S.

Prove it - scan and post the relevant pages instead of making useless comments.

UGH!!!?

The s/fs had nothing to do with 'stability and control standards'. To bad the Americans didn't have S&CS for the P-51 when they were loosing wings.

Just another one of Crumpp's diversions - I'm waiting for his list of Mk Is destroyed through structural failure, along with scans of the relevant pages from Morgan and Shacklady.

Not likely to happen, as you, and others, know so well.

1567MkI produced/17 structural failures = 92

About the same as the Beechcraft Bonanza.......

No wonder the RAF wanted to solve the issue.

http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/114...ireserials.jpg

http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/556...reserials2.jpg


I just thought this one was very interesting.....

http://img838.imageshack.us/img838/6...l100octane.jpg

X4268 went in July 41 to figure out why all the Early Mark Spitfire wings were breaking.

Thanks for the scans.
Structural failure through what causes? You count dives as structural failure but this is not the same as structural failure through poor longitudinal stability - Henshaw notes that no aircraft could withstand a sudden dive while the aircraft was still trimmed to climb, or with a poorly fitted tailplane fairing shroud, nor do the bare listings say anything about the circumstances.

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k3...-page-001a.jpg

Spitfire II Pilot's Notes on diving:

(Note Henshaw's comments on diving a correctly trimmed Mk V well beyond 450 mph.)

The Pilot's Notes don't warn about longitudinal stability in the dive, and before claiming they do, read the comments properly: They discuss imposing loads during aerobatics, part of which involves a dive. In rough weather it says the pilot could suddenly jerk the stick unless bracing his arm

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k3...e/page12dh.jpg

The NACA report does not mention elevator control or longitudinal stability in the dive.


Ergo, structural failure in dives cannot be attributed to longitudinal instability, there could be all sorts of reasons for such failure to occur, including badly trimmed control surfaces.

So, omitting dive failures we have:

Mk Is less than 1 year old lost through structural failure in flight:

K9977 Ia 191 EA MII FF 16-5-39 602S 18-5-39 lost wing during aerobatics crashed Haddington CE Lothian 30-12-39 Sgt Bailey killed SOC 11-2-40

N3120 Ia 391 EA MIII FF 29-10-39 6MU 3-11-39 266S 20-1-40 broke up in test flight to alt Pilot Gleed thrown out crashed 14.40hrs Littleport Cambs 18-2-40 SOC 22-2-40

X4613 Ia 1233 EA MIII FF 15-10-40 6MU 15-10-40 ? 603S 17-10-40 266S 24-10-40 Lost wing and crashed Gedney Hill Lincs CE 2-3-41 SOC 20-3-41

R6692 Ia 746 EA MIII FF 3-6-40 6MU 5-6-40 609S 7-6-40 Overstressed attacking Ju88 CE 12-8-40 SOC 2-9-40

(R6692 was "overstressed" - without knowing how this occurred this cannot be attributed to poor longitudinal stability.)

Mk Is - older airframes on OTUs lost through structural failure in flight:

R6777 Ia 803 EA MIII FF 21-6-40 8MU 22-6-40 65S 12-7-40 C2 ops 30-7-40 GAL 616S 20-8-40 72S 2-9-40 92S 3-11-40 145S 4-2-41 AFDU 6-3-41 152S 13-3-41 SF H 10-4-41 57OTU 4-8-41 61OTU 3-1-42 Broke up in air and crashed Blackbill Glam FAC3 8-7-42

R6882 Ia 840 EA MIII FF 1-7-40 (CMG) 6MU Brize Norton 28-7-40 cannon wing fitt 7OTU 3-9-40 AFDU Duxford 11-1-41 R-RH 10-2-41 Cv Vb M45 92S 'QJ-N' 9-3-41 609S 30-8-41 Broke up in air and abandoned 2.5m NE of East Stoke Notts FACE 10-1-42 SOC 17-1-42

R7064 Ia 1431 EA MIII FF 5-2-41 9MU 6-2-41 411S 5-7-41 52OTU 23-11-41 struct damaged in spin crashed and hit fence nr Aston Down CE 25-3-42 SOC 3-4-42

X4234 Ia 1031 EA MIII FF 15-8-40 8MU 16-8-40 609S 24-8-40 damaged combat P/O Staples safe 27-9-40 AST 66S 13-10-40 57OTU 1-11-40 FACB 27-6-42 ros wing fail in spin crashed Alsager Cheshire CE 25-9-42

X4854 Ia 1351 EA MIII FF 14-12-40 MU 16-12-42 53OTU into sea nr Dunraven Castle Thought struct fail of stbd wing 2-1-43

Three failures before early 1941 which might be attributed to longitudinal instability, plus 5 older airframes four of which were on OTUs - who knows what stresses and strains these older aircraft went through before ending up in the hands of trainee pilots?

Sure you can NZ if that is what your agenda is.;);) It doesn't matter even if the a/c was exceeding it dive limit speed.

Hm... so it was the X4268 which went to Farnborough for aileron testing Aug 40, the tests for wing failures were July 41.

Interesting interpretation :)

First of all, credit where its due, Crump has produced the copies with details and for that I thank him.

So we have 4 losses in the front line which are obviously caused by something.
One of these made it home and was probably a bent wing as the aircraft is designated as overstressed. I don't see any other examples so there is no case for saying that this was a significant problem.
The otthers we do not know the details of but the reasons could be many. This is far from proving that the Spit structural limits were easily reached.

What I also find interesting is that none seem to have been lost to spinning which rules that out as a weakness

This is clearer http://www.spitfires.ukf.net/p014.htm

X4268 Ia 1066 EA MIII FF 24-8-40 AMDP VA 24-8-40 RAE 9-40 aileron trials pilot J Quill. RAE 7-41 flight measurements of wing internal pressure for invest into struct fail of Spit wings. returned VAWD for continuation of trials.
ASTH for flaps mods. CRD AAEE 8-9-41 M45 install. Strengthened flaps tested as air brakes. 18-10-41 trials with thermostatically operated rad shutter ros VA 18-10-41 CRD DeH 23-11-41 39MU 18-2-42 3SGR 10-3-42 CF PRU engine failed wheels up landing nr Weeton Lancs CE 21-4-42 SOC 30-4-42

Opinions of an aerodynamicist:
http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k3...e/Morgan1a.jpg
http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k3...e/Morgan2a.jpg
http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k3...e/Morgan3a.jpg

No mention of longitudinal instability being a problem...
and an accident inspector:

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k3...e/Newton1a.jpg
http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k3...e/Newton2a.jpg
http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k3...e/Newton3a.jpg

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k3...e/Newton4a.jpg (X4421 Ia 1138 EA MIII FF 12-9-40 8MU 13-9-40 66S 16-9-40 57OTU 21-10-40 steep dive from low cloud violent pull out high speed stall spun wing fail Pilot thrown clear but killed 15.15hrs crashed Northrop Flints 27-3-41 SOC cancel RAE 8-4-41 AST 13-5-41 rebuilt as Va M45 164S 29-4-42 FACE 18-8-42 (Rebuild suspect) )

One of the major causes - aileron instability caused by stretching cable - again no mention of longitudinal instability.

Isn't the instability the fact that the Spitfire tightens its turn by itself without further control input???
The pilot has to stabilize the plane by countersteering.
Like a rear wheel driven car in a power slide around a turn, working, but stable is different.

It's not an effect that has ever got much mention, pilots are often quite candid about the quirks of aircraft they fly, and this thread is the first place I ever heard of it, it may have happened under certain conditions but I don't think it was a common feature of Spitfire handling.

Still the "pro Spitfire faction" is trying to push the dispute to a black and white scenario and concentrate to steer the thread to sections where they believe to have valid counter-documentation.

The truth is always grey!

Undisputed should still be the sensitivity and lightness of the longitudal control of the Spitfire.

Also proven is the fact that the longitudal control isn't stable, as it increases the g-load without further pilot input.

Those things should be implemented in game.

If now a player pulls his joystick all the way back in a cruise speed turn, the plane should react accordingly as the resulting g-forces would be way above the structural limits.

The player should be forced to use a small input to initialisize the turn and the to almost neutralize the controls to hold that turn, as the pilots had to to in RL.

In a tightening turn there should be signals (i.e. vibrations) to indicate the beginning of the pre stall buffet, followed by shaking and the loss of energy and increasing turn radius when the turn is further tightened and the buffet is fully entered.

Further tighteneing the turn should lead to a flick-roll.

The disharmony between ailerons and elevators should also be there.

Imo that is a summary that should please any rational view on this thread.

:rolleyes:

Really? It was the second major problem he mentions out of the 68 structural failures.

Correct. You have to apply a push force when should be applying a pull force. It is called a force reversal.

So a small input becomes an ever increasing acceleration until arrested by a push force. It is a symptom of the instability.

This is a measured by the NACA and a function of the divergent oscillation stick free measured by the RAE.

At high speed, the aircraft acceleration can overcome the airframe's limits to destruction.

Good Summary

Just need to bear in mind that the effects being called for are 'not' conducive to qualities noted for being 'easy to fly', so how do we meet half way on this? how are we going to recreate an alleged instability in an aircraft but retain the ease of flying qualities? or are we really saying that one NACA report on a MkV Spitfire outweighs the accounts of every Spitfire pilot of any Marque that ever lived?

When are we getting the 109 thread?

Wrong: 20 case of pilots losing control in cloud, 13 structural failures due to oxygen starvation, three due to pilot black-out - in none of these cases is longitudinal instability mentioned as a major or causative factor.

The anti-Spitfire, bad longitudinal instability faction can only see a cloudy, murky-grey, glass half empty scenario where there is no clear evidence that longitudinal instability actually caused in flight structural failure and they don't like valid black and white documentary evidence being posted to show how doubtful their case is. :rolleyes:

You guys want to do the Bf-109 next?

I was going to do the Hurricane next.

But it is not that way.

First, the anti-Spitfire faction exist's only in your mind.

Second, anybody who knows stability and control can read the article to see the characteristics clearly.

The gentleman who was interviewed for the article points out the fact they did not have a good understanding of stability and control engineering at the time.

The article is most interesting because it shows the thought process of the day and not for its engineering conclusions.

You however, take those engineering conclusions as proof. By that thinking, we should be doing meta-center calculations to prove the airplane was stable!!

:grin:

Why didn't you start threads concurrently?

That's reassuring - you all can stop the "pro-Spitfire faction" nonsense then.

You mean poor longitudinal stability? By all means point it out to the ignoramus' surrounding you.

What he does point out is that it was extremely difficult visualising the type of combat likely to be faced in a future war - he does not point "out the fact they did not have a good understanding of stability and control engineering at the time."

Jeffrey Quill Supermarine Chief test Pilot:
http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k3...Quill2-001.jpg

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k3...Quill3-001.jpg

The bob weights introduced in 1942:

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k3...Quill3-002.jpg
http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k3...pe/Quill4a.jpg
http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k3...Quill5-003.jpg

No stability problems Mk I & II, although borderline; Spitfire Vs incorrectly loaded at a squadron level in 1942, so bob-weights fitted in a "crash" (sic!) program before elevators modified with a larger mass balance.

Crump

Before you start everything I would much prefer it if you used a more complete and modern set of standards for the calculations.

The most recent ones that I had any dealings with were

MIL - STD - 1797A

The fundamental problem that I believe you have, is that something is either stable or unstable. These standards give levels of accaptable stability for different types of combat aircraft. For instance you would expect what is acceptable for a C17 to differ from an F15 or you end up with an F15 which is a sitting duck or a lot of airsick troops in the C17.

I last used these in the late 1980's and there is a better than average chance that they may have changed in that time, so you may want to look into it.

However to carry on with the black and white process that you have is foolish and totally out of kilter with the real world. In the real world its a mixture of theory your preferred approach, how they actually feel to fly which is my approach, plus what are they desinged to do. These are normally combined and we used to refer to the flying qualities.

If I go back to the three gliders I mentioned an age ago.
The Twin Astir was very heavy and as far as aerobatics was only really good in the vertical, but it was excellent for training people to go cross country as it had less need to thermal but was fast.
The K21 was a much better all round glider good at most aerobatics and for training. However it was almost impossible to spin, a major problem in a trainer. So much so we use an old K13 for Spin Training which I loved to fly. The K21 was also good for training all types of flying thermalling and cross country
The Fox was a dedicated aerobatic machine. You certainly didn't want to go cross country or thermal but if you wanted to learn the fine points of aerobatics, this was the machine to use. Excellent roll rate for a glider and very precise in the control.

All design is a balance and as I write this the BOB Lancaster and a Spit have just flown very low over my house at about 5-700 ft

Back to the topic the term we use is the flying quality of the machine, which has to take in the task in mind, how it feels and the theory. These standards cover this combination
The

"Some substance" is not a fact. "Researching for the detail and mandatory verification of the source are the primary rules of an historian", it's been said by one of my friends (historian).

Until there're unanswered questions then there's no fact. If have the right to doubt of it if it's not clear and so I ask you for detail.

Can I? Or I have been labled as naysayer? Or a Blue pilot who want to pork the Spitfire?
Don't worry... when we'll be talking about the 109 I'll post questions about that too if the "fact" are not detailed.

Please focus on the fact that I questioned also the pilots' experience and the airplane's conditions during the RAF mockfight.

I don't know your opionion about that, but it state that some pilots were not using the plane at it's full performance because they were afraid.

Now why should them be afraid if the plane was easy to fly? Could it be that those planes where not good as the others, or maybe the plane has a characteristic that they wanted to avoid. The author seems to claim the latter, but he says "probably" (IIRC)...

Of course the poster who want to picture they favourite plane as the better had claimed that the pilot's on the 109 was high skilled (and I can't doubt it, by logic) and the outturned ones were worser... Now please tell me why I'm the bad guy formaking questions while the "it's so because I tell it" guys are the good one?

As opinion the one about "easy to fly" means that it was easy to take in combat... no proof about that but people, you too, keep claiming it as gospel truth.
This "can" easily be the reason of that statement: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11004370

So many extreme manouvres... note that I've written "can"... it's a theory but not less meaningful as the "easy to take in combat" one.

I've not the responsibility of that claim, why should I find a source?

Anyway you keep missing the point: it's not "how many times it happened", it's "if it can happen".

Do I need a document to state that in most of the fights the victim was unaware of the enemy? Many reports seem to prove it. Of course we'll never have the right number but using "logic" we can define that most of the time the pilots didn't use their plane at its structural limits.

Now I ask to you: do you think they fought as the players are used to do in this sim?

Take the doc about the mock fight in which some RAF pilots could not outturn the 109 becouse of the fear to spin. Now reproduce the same mock fight in sim: experience makes me say that an average pilot (one who actually understood the limits of the plane) will always outturn the 109.

In this sim most pilots fly as there is no tomorrow (since they are allowed to do it, as to fly at 7km with the open cockpit): logically they do critical manouvres far more than the real pilots, so the issue of a plane has to be more evident...

So do you see why I claim that your document (Mr.Newton's interview) is not helpful here? First it's incomplete since it's the number of reported accidents, not all the accidents

Ah! It's called intellectual honesty!

You posted that interview claiming this: "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".

You were stating that only 46 spitifires were lost for structural failure on more than 22000!!!

Not knowing if the accidents over the sea were to be investigated by the AAIB (as I honestly and correctly asked), but it's easy to think they weren't (as other thinks it's a logic thing)... so 46 on 22000 is not an attendible number, while you stated it was the true one.

This is the reason I posted that it as small sample of the total Spitfire lost. And I remain with this convinction.

And on what are based the books? Does the author invent the numbers or he did a research for documents like we do?

You stated that 2 books reported the same numbers for which reason? Nobody here claimed you to be a liar, you had not to defend yourself.

If the source is about a small sample of accidents (as this one) or unattendible (and this's not the case) you can report it in 20 books... it remains about a small sample of accidents.

Why did you not quoted the part about the different numbers on the other book?
I report it again: "3 books: one has different numbers... Which ones are the corrected numbers?"

Can you answer? Do you still claim the 46/22000?

I hope you can anwser, or I start thinking that you can be one of those amatour historian (luckly) expert on spreading disinformation bacause of a personale agenda: I hope you are not, at first you impressed me as an nice honest guy.

Accusing what? I only asked if those accidents were ignored by the AAIB (not reported to them by the RAF).. some other posters honestly claimed that it's very probable that those accidents were not reported to AAIB since without wreckage were could not be an investigation.
I asked for it before and you, as the claimer of the AAIB's 46/22000 should have given an answer, researching instead of quoting a text without asking yourself the accuracy of the data (not on AAIB reported accidents, but on all the entire picture of the Spitfire lost in an accident).

Insulting? I'm starting to losing my patience with these accusations... please, Glider, remove them.

Did the Typhoon's issue have been reported to the AAIB? Do you know it? Where's the evidence?
I honestly asked if the wreckages were necessary to the AAIB: nobody said "yes, look at this document". So, until then, it's really probably that Typhoon's issue oversea were not investigated by the AAIB.

I'm questioning your evidences, I've not to prove anything that I've not questioned before. I'm playing the devil's advocate.

I don't forget anything!... I asked for it before BECAUSE OF this matter!

I've never stated it.. please don't turn around putting words in my mouth. I've never

I'm claiming that it's a small sample compared to all the Spitfires lost for accident during the WW2 since all the things covered before. I'm not the one who claimed the 46/22000

The only real insulting thing it's you asking for evidence to the others when they actually question yours.
I don't have to proof anything, it's you who has to answer.

Yours it's a nice way to support facts: "if I have a little evidence than it's as I say".

As I said before you miss the point of the thread... sure reports are usefull to understand some issues, but the clear evidences of that issues are more difficult to be found since those pilots have care of their life and it's not really probable that they flew in the way most of IL2's players do.

Look, before the implementation of the structural damage in IL2 1946 I used to dive at 900km/h pulling up very sharply... It's irrealistic and I'm happy that DT developed this feature.

It's so wrong to have also the elevator sensibility as an plane's issue as clearly warned in the pilot's note?

And here we go with the accusation of be Pro-Blue and Anti-Red!!! Good job! Glider, I thought you were different... In this message board it's impossible to be objective.

It so sad that many fans have to be always the ones against the others...

Your question: IMO the Spitfire landing is good as is it since ALL the plane in IL2 are easy to land.

Do I want a 109 difficult to land? As I stated before, many times, in other threads, I DO!!!
As I do a 190 that flips for a the accellerated stall...

Have I to put it under my sig?

So you mean that all the early Spitfire's had the control reversal at turn?

And do you mean that longitudinally instable aircraft has also the control reversal?

The problem here is that you extend a phenomena found on the worst case for all the early Spitfires.

Well, as you seem to be so productive text wise today, could you explain me why it's only the blue side who want's to model the longitudal stability and elevator control after the worst case scenario (Rotol propeller and the CoG beyond the limits) for all the early Spitfire's?

Very good! However, you should apply same standards to all the data, including the NACA tests, and particularly to anonymous internet sources who change their arguments all the time...

I totally agree with your friend. Ask him what he thinks about theories that have no support, I am confident that he will consider it a theory no more and no less.

There is a difference between a question that can be dealt with and one that cannot. Going back to your starting point "Researching for the detail and mandatory verification of the source are the primary rules of an historian", it's been said by one of my friends (historian).
You have the question, you do the research, then and only then do you have a position until then its a question.
Lets use an example. You implied that accidents were being ignored, you said it without any supporting evidence and I consider it to be an insult to those involved and its something that I would never say without serious research. I suggest you ask your friend about my approach and see what he says.

You also implied that other organisations might have investigated accidents. Again its a theory one that has no evidence behind it. As far as I am aware there is no other organisation so its a theory no more and no less. If you think there was another organisation then I suggest you look for it.

On both of these points if there is some evidence behind your position then I will spend as long as it takes to find the true position.

I look forward to that. Its also worth noting that on the Me109 vs Spitfire thread my choice for the BOB period was the Me109 so don't put me into the pro Spit camp either

Some pilots in the front line were probably afraid as they could well be inexperienced, flying a high performance aircraft they may have had as little as 10 hours in, against superior numbers, with in the opposing Me109 a fighter every bit as good as the plane they were flying in.
Those in the test are very interesting and expose the difference between being experienced and skilled. Those nervous were probably experienced those not were skilled. Taking the aircraft to the edge is difficult and demands confidence and skill, they lacked the confidence. All airforces had similar issues, in the Me109 the majority of pilots would not take the turn past the deployment of the leading edge flaps. This is a personal view but its in this area where I believe the RAF lost out by not having a two seat SPit for training. If you have someone in the cockpit who takes you to the edge and shows you that it is safe, what the warning signs are you can grasp it easily. Without it finding the edge is a nervous moment.
Gliders handle in many ways in a similar manner to ww2 fighter. We have buffet as the warning before the stall, the high speed stall and the spinning of different types. The first time you show someone how to spin or the high speed stall they are normally scared to death. Once they get used to the feeling some will do it frequently, its a buzz.

The skilled pilot will always get that extra 5/10% out of the aircraft. I used the example of the Zero and the Hellcat. Most would agree that overall the Hellcat is the better fighter but if S Sakai was in the Zero how would you rate your chances?

TheGerman Test Establishent were very clear in their advice to German pilots. Do not enter a turning fight with the Spitfire or Hurricane. They would not have had a pro RAF stance.

This is where we differ. There is an old saying, if it can happen it will. If its easy to reach the limit and crash then the limit will be reached and planes will crash. However the planes didn't crash in any numbers. Agree
Agree if applied to all aircraft types

It is as complete as it can be. No doubt the german authorities had a simiar accident investigation team and they would have similar limitations.
[QUOTE]



[QUOTE=Glider;451098]
Its more than you have put forward. You have a theory but nothing behind it
It is as good a number as it can be. I stand by the numbers as an indication that they are very low for this type of aircraft. I notice that no one has disagreed with this statement.
No one has any idea as to how many were lost away from the home areas due to structural issues but this is a statement of fact, not a conspiracy theory.
fine
[QUOTE]


Its quite possible to be objective and we covered the pro anti bit earlier.

nicely

If you provide a method to identificate which poster are part of the "blue side" I could give a partial answer: but I don't think it's true that only the blue want this feature modelled. I think to some friends used to fly Spitfire who could actually welcome this feature in name of the realism.

Anyway it's not a smart question: "why only the blue side want the the feature modelled?" can easily become "why only the red side don't want the feature modelled?"

We should leave away this Red vs Blue thing...

Do you mean that the test in the first post is not real? I know there are some posters able to find the source in few time (NZthypoon is surprising ;-) ) so if it was a false document it could be easily unmasked.

:-)

No, he is saying you should treat 'all' the evidence the same, are you saying everyone elses evidence is a lie?

The reason I can find documentation so quickly is because I know how and where to look. I enjoy ferreting around in books, archives etc - unlike some of my contemporaries. :grin:

No... There is a ton of documents in this thread... I don't think to have questioned them all. :-|

Mine was a compliment.
OT: BTW Can I ask if you know a source for the RR Merlin family? I'm trying to develop a framework about engines and I'm interested to have some data.

I'm not asking you to do my work: I need only a clue about a website or a book. Thanks!

No it's not. It is a hypothesis, which is the early stage of a theory.

point taken

Well, I see blue side planes on the signatures, is that a poor indicator? Sorry if you feel offended.

Actually I'm asking why you, regardless your color, are demanding that the longitudal stability and elevator control of the early Spitfire's after the worst case scenario?

The worst case scenario means here a Rotol propeller and CoG behind the aft limit for that configuration, like in the NACA tested Spitfire.

Note that typical pre war or BoB service CoG for a Spitfire with DeHavilland propeller ok even for the Spitfires flying today. Actually even the CoG NACA used for a Rotol propelled variant is ok with the DeHavilland prop... but not with the Rotol prop.

And the manual containing control reversal warnings is for the Rotol propelled variant.

Of course it's real but if you question pilots comments, you should also apply the same standard for all the data, including that report:

1. They did not know the CoG for military load.
2. They tested just one CoG position.
3. The CoG they used, 31.4" behind leading edge at the root is 7.8" aft datum. The rear limit for the same configuration is 7.5".

Actually you should, and more precisely, put things on right contex. Yes, there is plenty of documentation posted, including critics on NACA test (even wartime critics by RAE).

:rolleyes:

31.4%....MAC

:rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

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

Not with the longitudinal instability......

No problems: a reasonable starting point can be found on this site:
http://www.spitfireart.com/merlin_engines.html

Some valuable articles can be downloaded from Flight Global:
eg: http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchi...42 - 0449.html
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchi...42 - 2609.html
or
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchi...0-%200164.html

or for the Griffon

You can download a Merlin 61 Maintenance Manual Here (via DepositFiles)

One really good source for books is the Rolls-Royce Heritage Trust

Hope this helps.

Instead of just being smart and making rolleyes how about proving, with documentation, that this statement is incorrect. Prove that you are not making a worst-case scenario out of just two documents: Prove that the Spitfire had such bad longitudinal stability characteristics that it affected its abilities in general flight and in combat and, above all PROVE that this can be replicated in a flight sim made for PCs.

This is the second or third time in this same thread the same argument has arisen.

The instability existed in all early mark Spitfires at normal and aft CG until it was fixed with the inertial weights.

It is a function of the tail design and elevator, static margin, and fuselage length.

The Operating Notes are full of warnings about it. It was not limited to one propeller or a specific load.

It was at NORMAL and AFT cg.

NORMAL....

Noun: The usual, average, or typical state or condition.

Your whole premise of the Constant Speed Propellers being the "most adverse condition" is just plain wrong.

Which do you think is heavier? A three bladed CSP or a two blade fixed pitch wooden propeller? The correct answer is the CSP.

What do you think happens to the CG when you add weight to the front of the aircraft? Do you think it shifts forward or back?