Hurricane & Spitfire control characteristics

[fruitbat]

Originally Posted by Osprey

Also, do we know if the data is for fabric or metal ailerons? (I haven't looked at the images yet.....)

It will be for fabric, metal only started being retro fitted in around jan '41 and didn't go into production on new aircraft until later than that.

[Moggy]

Originally Posted by fruitbat

It will be for fabric, metal only started being retro fitted in around jan '41 and didn't go into production on new aircraft until later than that.

The earliest date I can find for the testing of metal ailerons for the Hurricane is 6th May 1941 at Langley...and that was on a Mk.II. I'd like to know if they were even tested on the Mk.I, so I'll keep digging around.

[fruitbat]

Originally Posted by Moggy

The earliest date I can find for the testing of metal ailerons for the Hurricane is 6th May 1941 at Langley...and that was on a Mk.II. I'd like to know if they were even tested on the Mk.I, so I'll keep digging around.

My mistake was having a brain fart. Its may'41 I have as well, although i have it that they were being made and fitted at the Air Service Training factory at Hamble, near Southhampton.

Despite the fact that they were being fitted to Mk V's, 616 Squadron (ie Bader) decided that they wanted to have them on there Spit MkII's and dealt directly with the factory and signed the bits of paper put in front of them.

About a year later, Johnnie Johnson got an official letter, requiring an explanation as to why and who had authorised this, he replied that perhaps Bader might know (he was PoW by now)!

I think these were probably the only spit II's that had them, and suffice to say no spits had them in BoB.

[Osprey]

That's good because it clears up an ambiguity that would most certainly lead to a bloody great argument!

Mh. I have some concerns if the report should be taken as a basis for FM development.

It clearly says that the authors of the report have some doubts about their finding as it does not entirely fit with reports from pilots.

The very first page says that both the Hurricane and the Spit were reported to be heavy on ailerons at high speeds while the Hurricane was measured to make the bank of 90° in 2 secs while the Spit's roll rate was measured to 8sec. It is obviously a discrepancy between pilots' complaints about the heaviness of BOTH aircraft and the measurements made on two individual aircraft with one being considerably lighter than the other.

The authors encouraged to contact Fighter Command in order to find out if the Hurricane used for measurement was too light or the used Spit too heavy.

I think this report is not a good base for any FM modelling and more consolidated data is needed.

For me 8sec at very high speeds for fabric cover ailerons is - in the first instance - as good as any other value because I simply do not know what would be a realistic number. My guess is that it is anyhow difficult to tell. And more difficult to extrapolate from other types - even from those who also have fabric covered ailerons. There are too many factors entering into the equation to make a definitive statement on roll rate just by knowing the cover material. I think that the aileron distortions which are the cause for modified aileron sensitivity at high speed not only may worsen with fabric cover but also with sub optimal supporting structure. Rolling also means to modify air streams over the wing assymetrically and wing aerodynamic form may impact how effective ailerons are.

Another matter is how much force the pilot can exercise upon the ailerons. Or vice versa how strong the aileron forces are that the pilot has to counter.

[41Sqn_Banks]

What about this?

[Kurfürst]

The complete graph showing the stick forces is even better!



and also:

"The rolling ability of the enemy fighters (Spitfire, Hurricane, Curtiss) at high speeds is worse than that of the Bf 109. Quick changes of the trajectory along the vertical axis cause especially with the Spitfire load changes around the cranial axis, coming from high longitudinal thrust momemtum, and significantly disturb the aiming."

http://kurfurst.org/Tactical_trials/...g_Aug1940.html

[Glider]

Jeffrey Quills comments on this might be of some interest being a highly qualified test pilot and one also flew in combat.

In October 1940 I flew a captured Me 109E; to my surprise and relief I found the aileron control of the German fighter every bit as bad - if not worse - at high speed as that of the Spitfire I and II with fabric-covered ailerons. They were good at low and medium speed, but at 400 mph and above they were almost immovable. I thought the Me 109E performed well, particularly on the climb at altitude, and it had good stalling characteristics under g except that the leading-edge slats kept snapping in and out. But it had no rudder trimmer - which gave it a heavy footload at high speed - while the cockpit, the canopy and the rearward vision were much worse than in the Spitfire. Had I flown the Me 109 earlier I would have treated the aeroplane with less respect in combat.

[fruitbat]

Originally Posted by Glider

Jeffrey Quills comments on this might be of some interest being a highly qualified test pilot and one also flew in combat.

In October 1940 I flew a captured Me 109E; to my surprise and relief I found the aileron control of the German fighter every bit as bad - if not worse - at high speed as that of the Spitfire I and II with fabric-covered ailerons. They were good at low and medium speed, but at 400 mph and above they were almost immovable. I thought the Me 109E performed well, particularly on the climb at altitude, and it had good stalling characteristics under g except that the leading-edge slats kept snapping in and out. But it had no rudder trimmer - which gave it a heavy footload at high speed - while the cockpit, the canopy and the rearward vision were much worse than in the Spitfire. Had I flown the Me 109 earlier I would have treated the aeroplane with less respect in combat.

Its the bit in red that i found amusing the first time i read this