A newbies impression of the 109 and spit

[Kurfürst]

Still plain silly. You want to make the lack of a proper two seat trainer variant a good thing...

[bongodriver]

I've got to step in to defend Crumpp on something......partially, let's be fair, you can't just nonsense everything someone says just because you are arguing with them.

spin training absolutely is done on aircraft 'cleared' for spinning, if an aircraft is not cleared for spinning it has been deemed so beause of some form of complexity in its recovery behaviour 'OR' it never went through spin trials for certification, as for the issue of spinning a hunter I hold my hands up and say 'I just can't comment', my belief is that the aircraft cannot be willfuly spun if it is placarded not to because those placards form a legal base that would be crazy to ignore, imagine the investigators sifting through a wreckage of a spin accident and finding the placard, insurers will just walk away and lawyers will be rubbing their hands together.

RAF pilots would have received spin training in the Tiger Moth, because spin recovery 'technique' is universal and it is a skill that can be applied to all aircraft.

But I am quite frankly amazed crumpp claims the Spitfire would 'break up' in a spin, if he really knows anything about this subject he would know a spin is 'not' a high stress manouvre, if an aircraft is going to break up in a spin it would break up in normal flight too, more than likely the Spitfire was found to have an undesireably long recovery time due to it's small rudder and/or it's neutral static stability, there really aren't many aircraft that can't actually be spun and recovered but they all have different behaviour, the clearance to spin would be granted on the basis of wether an 'average' pilot using standard recovery techniques can recover in a specified amount of time/altitude, if an aircraft can't do this it's just easier to not clear it than bring in a specialised spin training course for the aircraft.

some of my aerobatic experience is on the Military variant of the Slingsby T-67 Firefly both 160hp and 260hp(USAF T-3) variant, this aircraft was banned from spinning by the USAF and ultimately withdrawn from service after the loss of some aircraft and sadly some students and instructors too, the USAF said it was 'dangerous' and didn't recover........but I'm still alive despite having spun it countless times, the issue with the firefly is the spin recovery 'must' be done by the book but it is still just the standard technique and it will recover very predictably, get it wrong or be complacent and you beter hope you remembered the parachute if you didn't start with enough altitude, it is still cleared for spinning by the british military and civil aviation authority.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Still plain silly. You want to make the lack of a proper two seat trainer variant a good thing...

Just an observation, there were no ww2 spitfire two seat trainers and thousands of pilots were trained to fly them, and the Luftwaffe did have two seat 109's and 190's for a reason.

Personally I have often wondered why the RAF didn't have trainer versions. The jump from a Harvard to a Spit/Typhoon/whatever is a serious leap and a two seat version for at least the first say three - five flights makes sense, just to make sure they remember all the drills and can handle the extra speed.

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Glider

I will reword my previous posting:-

Just an observation, but during WW2 the RAF never needed to develop a two seat Spit or Hurricane and trained many thousands of pilots to fly them. But the Luftwaffe needed to develop two seat 109's with the inevitable distruption on the design and production teams, presumably because they needed to.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Going way o/t here...

I'd think the main reason that the British didn't develop trainer versions of the Spitfire and Hurricane was because they had powerful advanced trainers such as the Harvard and Miles Master, which replicated most of the flight characteristics of fighters, albeit they didn't have the same high speed capabilities. One pilot who describes transitioning from the Harvard to a Spitfire in 1940 was Geoffrey Wellum; he didn't seem to have a huge amount of difficulty. The Harvard could bite pilots who got careless, but I don't know much about the Master, although it looked likely to be a good intro to the Hurricane. Interesting that it was equipped with a Rotol C/S prop. (Maybe another aircraft type for the developers???)

The Germans used aircraft such as the Ar 96. There really wasn't much call for a two-seat 109 until later in the war, otherwise the Jagdfliegervorschulen, the basic fighter training units, used various version of the 109 and captured D.520s etc; the pilots then transitioned to Ergänzungsgruppe which were similar to OTUs but attached to Jagdgeschwader

[Crumpp]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

That is not what I said. Pilots in the 1930's and 1940's were given only very elementary training in aerodynamics. It was considered unnecessary and demanded too much mathematical knowledge. That is straight out of the RAF Flying Manual.

They are not the experts in aerodynamics that we see today in the cockpit.

Glider,

The Spitfire Mk I had unacceptable longitudinal instability. The RAE knew it and corrected it in later marks.

It is a fact.

3/4 inch stick movement to run the usable Angle of Attack range at weak or neutral stability with light stick forces is going to make for a squirrely airplane.



Read the report, the stick force gradient on the longitudinal axis was considered too light by most of the pilots.

By careful flying, maximum performance turns could be made.

The yaw wise stability experiences a pitch up with large deflections that coupled with the longitudinal instability caused the plane to experience rapid accelerations. That means it is very difficult for the pilot to precisely control the elevator. That asymetrical loading is what can cause the airframe to break apart in spin recovery.

That asymetrical loading is what can cause the airframe to break apart in spin recovery.

Completely different condition of flight from in a spin.

Bongodriver says:
But I am quite frankly amazed crumpp claims the Spitfire would 'break up' in a spin,

As for the T-67, it depends on the type. Some are certified to spin and some are not. There is no blanket prohibition in either country.

Either way, the United States and Great Britain follow convention. It is impossible for an aircraft to be disapproved of something in the United States and approved of it by another convention signer without violating the convention.

Read the Type Certificate issued by the United Kingdon Civil Aviation Authority. It quotes FAR/JAR and CFR's. That stands for Federal Aviation Regulation/Joint Aviation Regulation and Combined Federal Regulations.

In otherwords, all convention signers are on the same standard for airworthiness. In aviation, what is British Law, is United States Law as well as everyone else who signed the convention. We all do things basically the same. It has been that way since 1919.

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/1419/srg_acp_ba17-08.pdf

[Crumpp]

The jump from a Harvard to a Spit/Typhoon/whatever is a serious leap

Not really. The Harvard is a beast to fly and if you master it, the Fighters are "easy to fly" by very subjective comparison. The Harvard's mission is prepare pilots to fly these fighters. It does that very well and will bite a student hard if he does not follow the basic rules. That is the airplanes purpose in life, to teach pilots to become pilots and not break those rules. It is not to be gentle and docile so that a pilot thinks he can get away with something. A good trainer should bite but not kill you. It is hard to make the next lesson if you are dead.

The Spitfire is "easy to fly" compared to the Harvard/Texan.

The T-6 Texan is over 70 years old and is still a legend in the aviation world. It is referred to as the Pilot Maker because of all of the pilots it taught during WWII and continues to teach today the fine art of flying big engine tail wheel airplanes. The Texan is considered the basic trainer for those who want to transition into a Mustang or other high performance warbirds. However, with over 8,500 hours in the Mustang, Lee Lauderback will be the first to say jokingly, “the P-51 Mustang is a great trainer for the T-6 Texan!” The Mustang is easier to handle in several areas of operation, especially ground handling and crosswind situations. The Texan has been and still is a demanding teacher, not willing to compromise on basic rules and will slap you hard with the proverbial ruler if you break them.

http://www.stallion51.com/news-press-releases.php?i=9

The airplane is harder to fly than a P-51. I’ve flown both now, and I never would have never thought that was true. Understand, it’s nothing a competent pilot can’t handle, but the aircraft is the consummate trainer; she demands constant attention to be flown well – just like the T-38 did.

http://www.warbirdalley.com/articles/T6-sf.htm

[Al Schlageter]

How does the civilian aviation relate military aviation?

[fruitbat]

Originally Posted by Al Schlageter

How does the civilian aviation relate military aviation?

and in wartime as well.

anyone who's had any contact with the military will know for sure that peace time rules and war time rules are not the same. Safety levels are somewhat different.

[Crumpp]

and in wartime as well.

The only exemption from the convention is the navigation rules for state aircraft in wartime.

In short, it says you don't have to file a flight plan or notify customs if you are at war with a convention signing nation to overfly their airspace with state aircraft.



I don't think airplanes were an issue the last time the United States and England went to war.

[fruitbat]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

I don't think airplanes were an issue the last time the United States and England went to war.

lost me on that one, but i am willing to concede that point.