Quote:
Originally Posted by taildraggernut
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.
|
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)
Quote:
Originally Posted by taildraggernut
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.
|
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by taildraggernut
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.
|
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by taildraggernut
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.
|
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by taildraggernut
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.
|
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by taildraggernut
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.
|
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by taildraggernut
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.
|
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by taildraggernut
I don't understand what you mean here?
|
"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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by taildraggernut
are there no tests showing the Spitfire out turning the 109?
|
<= it should be the little blu one but I don't remember the code.