Spit IIa

[winny]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Not even close. This is gaming fantasy and not the reality of flying aircraft.

I can't put this any clearer. I'll leave it to someone who was there instead.

Geoff Wellum - " In a Spitfire, just before the stall, the whole aircraft judders, it's a stall warning, if you like. With practice and experience you can hold the plane on this judder in a very tight turn. You never actually stall the aircraft and you don't need to struggle to regain control because you never lose it. A 109 can't stay with you."

Time and time again people push machines past their operational limits, some live some die, that's not the point. The point is that 'riding the buffet' happened, for real. Geoff Wellum did it, as did many many other Battle of Britain pilots.

As for the reality of flying aircraft, what's your experience of flying Spitfires in combat?

I'll take my info from people who know what they are talking about, because they were there, thanks.

Originally Posted by Crumpp

MMMM, maximum performance = follow the book

You're sarcasm is palpable.

It's simply not the truth. I'll say it again, The RAE themselves (They conducted the 109 vs Spitfire mock dogfights) found that the reason in initial tests a Spitfire could not shake a 109 of it's tail was because the pilot's were backing off as soon as the buffet set in, when in fact it was possible to fly with the juddering and make a tighter turn. So max turning at least was achieved by not following 'the book'

Originally Posted by Crumpp

Maximum Performance AND you get to stay alive!!

No if you follow the book, you can't shake a 109, and you die.

Originally Posted by Crumpp

If you read this primer on Pilot Operating Instructions, you will find that for most maximum performance there is ONLY one point or airspeed that maximum performance can be obtained. That point is linked to the physical design of the aircraft and is given to the pilot by the engineers. There is nothing to be "conservative" about. Additionally, the margins are such there is very little room engineering wise to be "conservative" and still produce a machine that flys.

And what exactly has this got to do with combat flying? Irrelevant, they did whatever they could to stay alive.

[TomcatViP]

Guys we are now entering the irrational. What is not on the book or reported being said by only a few without charts & nbr as a back up is not debatable.

One thing is sure. Some can perform more than other and surely by a slight margin (there is no post stall manoeuvrability in a spit !) some did.

What we care here as a rendering of RL situation would be that very specific node were experienced will get trough with a "slight margin" of G and other that will fear a sudden stall or fail in an accelerated stall aggravated with a wing over with a minor slip angle (that we can all agree - it's documented).

Stick shaking would be not necessary (and hardly done without th erequired hardware compatibility) but head shaking and blur with increasing effect are example of what wld be "easy" to implement. Of course this is speculation. But damn me if any reader here won't prefer TC speculations to both of your tigers pi**ng contest.

On that base it is possible to compute the exact buffeting speed with both wings level and use a charts and RL experience for the resulting bank angle achievable before the stall.

Pls be constructive. I hve the feeling that we could help to build of delectable Spitfire at LEAST !

[IvanK]

Crumpp you really don't read what other people post. You sprout falsehoods with abandon, surprising for someone with a "Degree in aeronautical science". Your words just don't match that qualification !

[Crumpp]

Crumpp you really don't read what other people post.

I certainly switched off much of what you said at the constant "your wrong...blah, blah, blah" in your last post over how much lift a wing will produce at flow reversal causing buffeting.

I am sure you understand that aerodynamic buffet is the result of flow reversal of a portion of the wing.

It is especially silly when you flatly state the same thing I am saying and therefore agree in point.

The RAE themselves (They conducted the 109 vs Spitfire mock dogfights)

That is not what I read. The RAE was concerned that pilots were worried about the abrupt stall and subsequent spin entry being afraid to push the airplane. Any sane person would be afraid of that.

Pilots were not finding the limit as IvanK says:

IvanK says:
you ease the back pressure off to get back into the Buzz .... Ideally the very first hint of it.

And I clarified:

Crumpp says:
Ideally the very first hint of it...... No, Ideally you have none at all and are at the point just before any buffeting occurs. That is also what the Spitfire Mk I notes relate

Maximum turn performance will occur at the point just before buffeting begins as the Spitfire POH instructs. That is how the physics works. It does not matter what tricks our mind might play as we shake, rattle, and roll through a turn hunting for that 2D polar CLmax. If you just ease the stick forward to the point the buffeting stops, the airplane will increase in turn rate. With buffet....the entire wing is not working producing maximum lift force in the direction you want it to go....Without buffet...the entire wing is working at your command.

I wonder if when being at stall limit in a turn if the speed can be maintained? Usually induced drag increases quite a bit with increased angle of attack. And that's what one does: increasing angle of attack until buffeting. Here draf is highest. Consequence: Loss of speed ==> Closer to stall speed ==> Need to ease up on stick or gain speed by loosing altitude.

[CWMV]

Well...new patch 109 has a little more speed.
Without WEP I can get it up to and maintain 450kph, with WEP 460kph.
Cool with me.

[VO101_Tom]

Originally Posted by CWMV

Well...new patch 109 has a little more speed.
Without WEP I can get it up to and maintain 450kph, with WEP 460kph.
Cool with me.

So what changed?
Edit: These speeds are without WEP. The "Notleistung" is 20% plus power that these should be added (of course, the efficiency of the propeller and the air resistance due to the growth rate of less than 20%, but it is certain that more than 10km/h)

[CWMV]

+10 to 20kph/5 to 12mph
Of course that is with 10% fuel, at less than 10 meters, and no ammunition.
Did you not get an increase? I was always firmly stuck at 440kph before.

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by VO101_Tom

So what changed?
Edit: These speeds are without WEP. The "Notleistung" is 20% plus power that these should be added (of course, the efficiency of the propeller and the air resistance due to the growth rate of less than 20%, but it is certain that more than 10km/h)

I think you'll have to wait until the next patch where we know that FM's are being worked on before we can evaluate things.

[VO101_Tom]

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Stormcrow

I wonder if when being at stall limit in a turn if the speed can be maintained? Usually induced drag increases quite a bit with increased angle of attack. And that's what one does: increasing angle of attack until buffeting. Here draf is highest. Consequence: Loss of speed ==> Closer to stall speed ==> Need to ease up on stick or gain speed by loosing altitude.

Hi. If you turn with stall limit, the turning radius will be very tight, but the aircraft will be very slow (angular velocity is low). If you want to turn to a theoretical maximum angular velocity (constant speed, sustainable energy for a long time), you need the corner speed (this is a basic, well-known thing. It is taught in military academies).