Stability and Control characteristics of the Early Mark Spitfires

[6S.Manu]

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)

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[6S.Manu]

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...g_spitfire.htm

Aerobatics: “This aeroplane is exceptionally good for acrobatics. Owing to its high performance and sensitive elevator control, care must be taken not to impose excessive loads either on the aeroplane or on the pilot and not to induce a high-speed stall. Many aerobatics may be done at much less than full throttle. Cruising rpm should be used, because if reduced below this, detonation may occur if the throttle is opened up to climbing boost for any reason.

Stalling:This aeroplane has sensitive elevators and, if the control column is brought back too rapidly in a manoeuvre such as a loop or steep turn, stalling incidence may be reached and a high-speed stall induced. When this occurs there is a violent shudder and clattering noise throughout the aeroplane, which tends to flick over laterally and, unless the control column is put forward instantly, a rapid roll and spin will result.

[taildraggernut]

Originally Posted by 6S.Manu

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...g_spitfire.htm

Aerobatics: “This aeroplane is exceptionally good for acrobatics. Owing to its high performance and sensitive elevator control, care must be taken not to impose excessive loads either on the aeroplane or on the pilot and not to induce a high-speed stall. Many aerobatics may be done at much less than full throttle. Cruising rpm should be used, because if reduced below this, detonation may occur if the throttle is opened up to climbing boost for any reason.

Yes, the sensitive elevators were an unusualy rare and desireable quality, it sounds pruden't to give warning for a situation that 'could' arrise

Originally Posted by 6S.Manu

Stalling:This aeroplane has sensitive elevators and, if the control column is brought back too rapidly in a manoeuvre such as a loop or steep turn, stalling incidence may be reached and a high-speed stall induced. When this occurs there is a violent shudder and clattering noise throughout the aeroplane, which tends to flick over laterally and, unless the control column is put forward instantly, a rapid roll and spin will result.

Yes, the sensitive elevators were an unusualy rare and desireable quality, it sounds pruden't to give warning for a situation that 'could' arrise

[winny]

Brian Lane, on stalling...



So he was taught the move at Flight Training School..

[Kwiatek]

Ok what was then? Author surly alive

[winny]

Originally Posted by Kwiatek

Ok what was then? Author surly alive

Yes, he got away. Basically.. He was followed by 2 109's, twisted and turned, "nearly hitting the water on several occasions" used his boost cut, one of the 109's dived on him from the side, Lane turned into him, fired his remaining ammo, hit the 109 at very close range, the 109 went straight into the sea, the second one wasn't fast enough to catch up with him. He landed safely but badly shaken!

He survived the BoB but never came back from a mission in December '42.. He was last seen giving chase to two Focke-Wulf 190 fighters. Listed as MIA

[Robo.]

Originally Posted by 6S.Manu

So, IMO, it was one of the best, not THE best... it has issues as any other plane. Perfection does not exist.

You're absolutely right here but I guess but no one in this thread is claiming Spitfire is the best plane in the world. I see lots of defensive activity in here against OPs claims but no praising of the Spitfire.

In game, it is also difficult to fly the Spit on the edge. There are capable pilots and there are not so good pilots and you can tell the difference when you meet them. Same in real life I guess except this is a game. Same goes for any aircraft in the sim so that's fair enough.

As for the issue, yes they have changed something in the FM in the last beta patch as I find the Spitfire is more difficult to stall now (1.07). I prefered the previous version to be honest.

Originally Posted by 6S.Manu

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.

Look at the airplane for that it is, and not for that it's been told of.

Hurricane is very much off topic here, but:

http://www.vintagewings.ca/VintageNe...Rob-Erdos.aspx

Leave a trickle of power through the flare or it will drop out from under you. The landing is almost - pardon the pun – a bit of a let-down. It’s easy. The Hurricane’s undercarriage is wide and soft, and the directional stability and response allow adequate tracking through the roll-out.

[taildraggernut]

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.

No sorry wrong, it had 'desireably' light controls

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

No sorry wrong, heavy stick forces were a penalty for high speed and extensive research was put into remedying the problem, an aircraft with heavy controls is more difficult to control.

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?

Hard to say, the Griffon Spits were almost a different aircraft but given the eliptical wing and general planform of the aircraft were unchanged, and it's very much the physical shape of the aircraft that defined alot of its flying qualities, then perhaps it's not a Myth, but a Griffon Spit is not the topic here.

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.

and which conditions do you have evidence for that made the Spitfire particularily difficult? given that NACA said it's biggest shortcoming in combat terms was 'heavy' ailerons at very high speed, so you think the Spitfire was famous for being a 'touring' machine?
at least you realise there is an element of the anti-british/anti-spitfire going on here.....I wonder who it is?

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 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.

Who said 'THE' best?

The RR merlin was not a unique quality...
Receptive airframe? you have a strange set of rules
Hispano cannons are guns not aircraft, what good is a hispano if it's nailed to a cessna 152?

Aerobatics are useless, aerobatic ability is very usefull, if the aircraft can't cope with aerobatics then it hasn't got a hope in hell of being a fighter....like a PA-28

You make it sound like the Allies have tried to erase all memory of the Germans, if just being the winners was the main influencing factor in aircraft favouriteism then why are there so many LW fans?

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.

are you saying that 'fame' only comes from bad qualities?

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.

Huh?

But it was easy to fly... how can them not be able to outturn a plane crap plane like a capture 109E.
Those pilot should be really low skilled to not push the plane at his limits, since it was easy.

But the 109 wasn't crap....what medication are you taking?

No. The one about the Norwegian guy pulling up and turning left only to spin and not recover since it's 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?

Because in combat you can end up spinning because you just couldnt' hold on to the edge forever and somebody is trying to kill you or the other way around, nothing to do with propensity to spin, or are you saying the Spitfire was the only aircraft that spun in hard turns?

"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.

I guess that is really what you are saying....

"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.

So if I found a report of a 109 spinning I could claim the 109 was unduly prone to it?

<= it should be the little blu one but I don't remember the code.

ah the punchline for the Lufwhiners.....I mean the unbiassed truthmongers who have nothing but the best interests of historic realism at heart.