Stability and Control characteristics of the Early Mark Spitfires

[6S.Manu]

Originally Posted by taildraggernut

I know what you were getting at, I just thought it was somewhat tenuous to have brought it up, the thread is about Spitfire stability not about bad decisions made in combat.

Is being prone to spinning not a control issue?

What about pilots afraid to turn because of the spin?

[taildraggernut]

Originally Posted by 6S.Manu

Been prone to spinning it's not related to a Control issue? Stick forces?

Having the pilots afraid to turn because of the spin?

It is but I believe this thread has conclusively proved the Spitfire was not 'prone' to spin unexpectedly, no more prone to spin than any other aircraft in a high speed stall condition.

Some pilots are just afraid of spinning, not of the Spitfire, note how some conciously chose to spin....what were they afraid of?

[robtek]

Just forget it 6S.Manu, the Spitfire fan club wont accept ANY blemishes on their idol.

[taildraggernut]

Originally Posted by robtek

Just forget it 6S.Manu, the Spitfire fan club wont accept ANY blemishes on their idol.

running out of arguments?

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by robtek

Just forget it 6S.Manu, the Spitfire fan club wont accept ANY blemishes on their idol.

Seems more like the anti-Spitfire/Anti-British fan club can't find any real blemishes.

The anti-Spitfire/Anti-British fan club struck out on the 100 octane fuel and now have struck out on the Spitfire. One more strike out on the Hurricane to come. They are batting 0.0.

Then there is the question why the OP picks the Hurricane and not the Bf109 for his next topic.

[taildraggernut]

RL combat was a lot different from what we have in these games. If it was then no Spitfire would be claimed by the Germans, since every pilot could ride it easily to its limit.

Really?.....I suppose you know.

if the Spitfire was anything like the portrayal being attempted by the OP then History would need to be re-written because no Spitfire would ever have claimed a 109.

When the term 'easy to fly' and 'a pilot's dream' were coined about the Spitfire it was not aimed at pilots who just wanted to cruise cross country wearing ray-bans, it was for the pilots with some testosterone (including the ladies) who wanted to point it around the sky and have a blast, an aircraft that is likely to spin out is never going to get that reputation, the fact some spitfires ended up spinning out in combat is 'not' indicative of a propensity to do so, combat is a stressfull enviroment that can force you beyond the limits because your mind is often overloaded with more to worry about than limits in the pilots notes.

Now, please come back with some pilots reports indicating a tendency to spin unexpectedly etc and help me to change my mind.

[6S.Manu]

Originally Posted by taildraggernut

if the Spitfire was anything like the portrayal being attempted by the OP then History would need to be re-written because no Spitfire would ever have claimed a 109.

He stated that it was an excellent fighter, he did not say it was totally uncontrollable.

That's the problem? I can't talk for him (as I disagree that Spitfires were prohibited from spinning) but he only stated it has an issue who usually is not remembered because "it was easy to fly".

See, I'm not an Anti-Spitfire (or worser, Anti-British... pure crap and shame on who states that)... but I can really say that I'm an Anti-"Easy to fly = Tie Fighter" as many here think.

It's probably that many other airplane had similar issues, and there's no wrong in focusing on those. But why many need to be so defensive about this plane? Why can't they separates the RL plane from the Myth?

I know it's not easy if many STILL think that the best plane is the more manouvrable (look at my sig).

Originally Posted by taildraggernut

When the term 'easy to fly' and 'a pilot's dream' were coined about the Spitfire it was not aimed at pilots who just wanted to cruise cross country wearing ray-bans, it was for the pilots with some testosterone (including the ladies) who wanted to point it around the sky and have a blast, an aircraft that is likely to spin out is never going to get that reputation, the fact some spitfires ended up spinning out in combat is 'not' indicative of a propensity to do so, combat is a stressfull enviroment that can force you beyond the limits because your mind is often overloaded with more to worry about than limits in the pilots notes.

Easy to fly... sure it was easy to takeoff/land easy in turning, climbing and diving... nowhere it's written it was easy to push at limits. Or why should be RAF pilots be outturned by a poor 109?

Originally Posted by taildraggernut

Now, please come back with some pilots reports indicating a tendency to spin unexpectedly etc and help me to change my mind.

I did already some pages behind: but "the fact some spitfires ended up spinning out in combat is 'not' indicative of a propensity to do so"...

So why should lose time in doing it?


Just answer me: how can a 109 outturn a Spitfire like it happened in those tests?

[taildraggernut]

He stated that it was an excellent fighter, he did not say it was totally uncontrollable.

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.

That's the problem? I can't talk for him (as I disagree that Spitfires were prohibited from spinning) but he only stated it has an issue who usually is not remembered because "it was easy to fly".

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.

See, I'm not an Anti-Spitfire (or worser, Anti-British... pure crap and shame on who states that)... but I can really say that I'm an Anti-"Easy to fly = Tie Fighter" as many here think.

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.

It's probably that many other airplane had similar issues, and there's no wrong in focusing on those. But why many need to be so defensive about this plane? Why can't they separates the RL plane from the Myth?

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.

Easy to fly... sure it was easy to takeoff/land easy in turning, climbing and diving... nowhere it's written it was easy to push at limits. Or why should be RAF pilots be outturned by a poor 109?

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.

why should be RAF pilots be outturned by a poor 109

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.

I did already some pages behind: but "the fact some spitfires ended up spinning out in combat is 'not' indicative of a propensity to do so"...

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.

So why should lose time in doing it?

I don't understand what you mean here?

Just answer me: how can a 109 outturns a Spitfire like it happened in those tests?

are there no tests showing the Spitfire out turning the 109?

[TomcatViP]

Originally Posted by 6S.Manu

See, I'm not an Anti-Spitfire (or worser, Anti-British... pure crap and shame on who states that)... but I can really say that I'm an Anti-"Easy to fly = Tie Fighter" as many here think.

+1

Superbmarine Spitfire : Yes

Remote ctrld WiiFire : NO

[6S.Manu]

Originally Posted by taildraggernut

It is but I believe this thread has conclusively proved the Spitfire was not 'prone' to spin unexpectedly, no more prone to spin than any other aircraft in a high speed stall condition.

Some pilots are just afraid of spinning, not of the Spitfire, note how some conciously chose to spin....what were they afraid of?

Then we ended with a different conclusion... small stick travel and low stick force required are enough for me. 3G with less than a inch of stick movement...